HomeMy WebLinkAbout082195 PC Agenda ~.~...
on i~ems that
are not list~ on the Agenda. Sp~k~ ffc !imi~ U) ~r~ (3) mjn~ch. lf~u ~ tO sp~k to
For all other agenda items a "R~u6t to S~" ~ mus~ be fil~ wiffi ~e Pl~n~g S~Crmry before
I. Approval of Agenda
2. Elation ~Nt~ Chairman and-C~hairman.
4. Approval of minut~ from the May !, !~ Pknning Commission m~ing.
5 I)rufl MOU h,r BCI/CCL Venture No. I and 2
PUBLIC !lEARING ITE,~S
7;. Case No: Pla~nfag. Appli~i0n .NQ, 9~ '(~ondigi. Gnal U~ Permil)
-: :~ Applicant: . U~OCAL P~l~m ProducL~ ~ny .,~,..
I~ation: South~st.~r~ of-RanCho 'C~i~rnia Road a~d Front Street
Prt~posal: To demolish an existing service station and rebuild a 2.5~ squffc ~ot
station with a ~nvcnicngc s~rc: ~d concurrent s~e of beer and w~e.
· '~'. Environmental Action: Categorical Exmption
Planner: MaCaw .Fagn, ~ssistant Plan~or /
Recommendation: Continue Io September 18. 1~5
Applicant: ~lte Home Coloration
l~cation: Sout~t'~aer of To~view:~mue and Muffi~a Hot Springs'R~
Proposal: ....A r~umt ~ ppprov~ 'of a .1 ~. IoL single t~mily subd iris ion.
-:~ Environment~ Action: Exempt pursuant ~ S~tion 15182
Planner: S~ Na~eh
R~endation: C0n~na~cc off C~end~
: . .:: ::' . . , "" "'~. ":" - .so and dlstnbutmn facility
:': '~;~ntal Action:
/:::!~ ' ' ':~;'" ¥fji~i~/---.Ma~cw Fagan. Assistant Planner . .'.';
~,~... ~ . i 0,Case ,~9:~. '. ' .....' I
_ I ""~ ...... .- . ..........,, ,~-~;:~~ :"'" '
:::~-~,~ . ~cation: Nor~w~t corner of Racho Califi~rnia Rog and
:[j:~.: 'Proposal To ~m~ a 3,363 squ~e f~t ~nvenience m~
~ ,.. ..: ~q~,.E~mt~t l~ilit~ on a 1.4 acrc p~c¢l. The application is ~So
~.? ~: ,'..::', :~,: .:'C~}'~%~.~,s~.of.b~ and Wine ~r off-site'~onsumption.
Planner: ' Ma~eW 'i'ag~,.Assis~nt PI~
R~o=endation: Approv~ ' ' '
'~.;~' ' ' ~ ""C "" ' '~ ''~ L., ~ v-f ,:, " f..~ode' .' ' ~ ' .,' ' :' '
.' ' ..-
~ I · ..,-.,
. ..
Plann6r: lohn Meyer'
R~co~endation: Roview ~d Direct
. .~ . a. [~cation: . Sou~ly. corner 0f P~a Road & Stal~ Highway
"~: . Propose: . ~. '?l~ffm,~t~ ~r.:chang~,~ )l~'~i~ion from
~" ' " ~f~si~nal Offic~ (O) to itighwa~ Tourist Comm~tfi~ ~T)
b. I.o~ation: No~herlv of Rancho Cal ~fornia Road & E~t~rly of ~e City Limit
'PropOSal: General hart Amendment Io chang~ the land uso ~siSn~ion l'l'oB1 Open
Spaco (OS) to Business P~k (BP)
..... ' '~'.i
c. I.o~at~on: Northerly of Emerprise. Circl~ North& S'ouffierly of~c Santa Gemdis
Creek Channel
I'roposal: Geucr~ Plan Amendment to change the land use designation ~om
Busin~s Park (liP) tl~ S~rvicc Commercial (SC)
IA~cafion: westafiy ~ide:of BUsi~as Pa~k:Drive
Propesal: Genoral Plan Amenament to change the l~d us~d~ation ~om
Business Park (BP) tn Public Inslimtkmal ffI)
~ Loeatron~ :;/: : ~. Southwestefiy cOrner~of Diaz Road & Winchester ROad
PrOposali GeneralPlan Amendmere to change the laffd.:ii~e-..designation from
BusinesSiPafi~,(BP) to Service Commercial (SC).
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
6 p,m. at theRancho-CaliforniaWate~Distriet~s~Board,R0°m, 42135
Winchester Road, Temecula, California.
%
ITEM #2
ELECTION OF NEW CHAIRMAN AND CO-CHAIRMAN
ITEM #3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBIECT:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director
September 11, 1995
Director's Hearing Case Update
The following cases were heard and approved at the Planning Director's Hearing in August
1995:
PA95-0052, One Lot Subdivision, Medical Design Concepts
PA95-0054, Minor Conditional Use Permit, Sunridge Community Church
Attachment:
1. Action Agendas for August 1995 - Blue Page 2
R:~DIRlff. AR\MEMO\9-11-95.DH 8116/95 lifo i
ATTACItME, NT NO. 1
ACTION AGENDAS
ACTION AGENDA
TF_,MECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 7, 1995 1:30 PM
TF_,IV[F_L"IYLA CITY HAT,L - MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER:
Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMM'F, NTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner
on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If
you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner
before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
PA95-0052
Medical Design Concepts
Northwest comer of Winchester Road and Diaz Road
A request for approval of a one lot subdivision to combine 12
existing lots
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section of CEQA
Saied Naaseh
Approval
ACTION:
APPROVED
R:%DIRHEAR~AGENDA\8-7-95.AGN IB/16/95 klb
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S WEARING
REGULAR lv~,RTING
AUGUST 10, 1995 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL - MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner
on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If
you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a p'mk
"Request to Speak" form should be f~led out and filed with the Senior Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner
before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environnaental Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Planning Application No. 95-0054 (Minor Conditional Use
Permit)
Sunridge Community Church
27690 Commerce Center Drive
A request to approve a church facility in an existing bnilrllng
Class 1 Categorical Exemption per Section 15301 of the
California Environnaental Quality Act
Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner
Approval
APPROVED
ADJOURNMENT
R:\DIIU4.FAR',AGENDA\g-10-95.AGN 8/16/95 Iclb
ITEM #4
MINUTES OF A WORKSHOP
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 1, 1995
A workshop of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on
Monday, May 1, 1995, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District's Board
Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairman Steve Ford called
the meeting to order.
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Slaven, Ford
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Webster
Also present were Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Attorney Peter Thorson,
Principal Engineer Ray Casey, Associate Planner Saied Naaseh, Senior Planner
Debbie Ubnoske, Recording Secretary Joan Price.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Aperoval of Aqend~
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by
Commissioner Blair to approve the agenda.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Slaven, Ford
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Webster
2. Director's Update
Planning Director, Gary Thornhill, had no additional information for the
Commissioners.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
PA 94-0073. PA 94-0074. PA 94-0075. PA 94-0076 - GRC
Development
The workshop was opened at 6:05 P.M.
Saied Naaseh presented the staff report for the prol~osed Roripaugh
Ranch project. He requested Commission direction on the following
points:
size of the buffer area at the outer perimeters of
the project
lot size preference
open space
Minutes,pc\050195 1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 1. 1995
estate lots
better transition after buffer
site location for parks
accessability to the parks
Planning Director Thornhill explained the format of the workshop. He
said the Commission will go over the plans and maps of the project
with the developer in order to provide them with specific concerns.
The Public Hearing was opened at 6:20 P.M.
Tom Nievez, 22690 Cypress Avenue, Moreno Valley, representative
for GRC Development, presented the history of the Roripaugh
property. He detailed the 68 acre community park proposed and the
specific guidelines for the area.
John Chapman, 4 Newport Blvd, Newport Beach, detailed the grading
map and reported there would be no attached housing.
Allen Menses, 60 Corporate Park, Irvine, architect for the project
presented the ranch theme design of the project.
Stan Herman, 1920 Main Street, Irvine, representative for the
developer and reported on the open space, developed parks, bike
trails, buffer trails and the intensive landscape program designed in the
project.
Bill Vazzana, 69505 Lynell, Temecula, spoke against increased
density.
Ray Gianton, 3221 Vino Way, Temecula, expressed concern regarding
the traffic circulation in Wine Country.
Jack Norris, 33055 Vino Way, Temecula, expressed concern with the
lack of buffer for surrounding neighborhoods.
Jim Miller ,39355 Pourroy Road, Temecula, expressed concern for the
lack of buffer.
Chairman Ford closed the Public Hearing at 6:50 P.M. and called for a recess.
The workshop was reconvened at 7:10 P.M.
At this time the Commission reviewed the plans and maps and questioned the
representatives from GMC Developers on the project,
Commissioner Ford expressed concern on funding the improvements
needed for Nicolas Road, the walking distance to the elementary
school site, and the grading issue.
Minutes.pc\050195 2
PLANNING COMMIgSION MINUTES
MAY 1. 1995
Commissioner Blair expressed concern on the "sea of houses" design,
the outstanding habitat issues, buffering, circular housing
configuration and locations of parks.
Commissioner Slaven shared similar concerns and the traffic
circulation and neighborhood design.
Commission concerns for staff investigation were as follows:
- buffering to surrounding areas
- open space usability
- park locations
- lot size
- horse trail connections
- school site
- additional landscaping
- habitat issues
- grading
- commercial site near schools
- density
Planning Director Thornhill requested input from the Commission on
Leon Way.
Commissioner Blair stated she was reluctant to relinquish road
circulation in the General Plan.
PUBLIC INPUT
The floor was opened for public questions at 8:20 P.M.
Joyce Willlares, 33612 Vino Way, Temecula, requested clarification
on Vino Way being involved in the project.
Larry (last name not given), 393 Coral Jessie Circle, Temecula,
requested clarification on the circulation plan as it relates to schools in
the project.
Jim McCarthy, Pala Vista Road, Temecula, requested clarification on
the east end of Pala Vista Road.
Bill Vazzana, Lynell Road, Temecula, spoke concerning the
Commissioners agreement or disagreement on the density of 3 units
per acres. Also Mr. Vazzana does not want access through Calle
Contento for this project.
Helen Lasagna, Nicolas Road, Temecula, expressed confusion as to
Nicolas Road being improved or in the event Butterfield Road is
improved will Nicolas Road be by-passed.
Minutes.pc\050195 3
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 1. 1995
Principal Engineer Ray Casey responded to several of the questions:
Circulation associated with the General Plan has been adopted
by the City Council to include the Vino Way extension. Nicolas
Road connecting with Calle Contento and Leon Way will also be
improved with this project.
Vino Way is in the General Plan circulation element. Studies
have not been received to supersede this.
The project is conditioned for all-weather access on roads,
which includes bridges and culverts if required.
a Traffic Study will be conducted to further answer these
questions.
Planning Director Thornhill explained this is the first phase in the
processing of the project and suggested this be continued off-calendar
to allow the staff to work with the developer to discuss and resolve
the issues.
Director Thornhill recommended one or two neighborhood meetings
and then come before the Commission. The City will re-notice the
Roripaugh Ranch project, for public information.
The motion was made by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner
Blair to continue the Roripaugh Ranch project off-calendar.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Slaven, Ford
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Webster
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director Thornhill reported on the following:
Principla Engineer Ray Casey is leaving the City to
relocate to another state. The Planning Director and
Commissioners thanked Ray for his service to the City
and stated he would be missed.
The Development Code session of the Planning
Commission has been scheduled for June 7, 1995.
Minutes.pc\OSO195 4
I~ING COMMaSION MINUTES MAY 1. 1995
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioner Blair and seconded by Commissioner Slaven the
workshop be adjourned at 8:46 p.m.
Nex~ regular meeting, May 15, ~895, 8:(30 p.m., Rancho California Water Disl:rict's
Board room, 42135 Winchester Road, TemeGula, California.
Chairman Steve Ford
Secretary
Minutes .pc\050195 5
ITEM #5
MEblORANDUIVl
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBYECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
August 21, 1995
Draft Memorandum of Understanding with BCI/CCL
Prepared By: Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner
As requested by the Planning Commission staff has included a draft copy of the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with BCUCCL for the Commission's information.
No action is necessary by the Planning Commission on this item. This MOU includes 111
lots within Planning Area 14 of Margarita Village Specific plan and is scheduled for the City
Council's consideration on September 12, 1995. The MOU has been included as Attachment
No. 1.
Attachments:
1. Draft Memorandum of Understanding with BCI/CCL- Blue Page 2
R:~STAFFRPTxCCLMOU.PC 8116195
Attachment No. 1
Draft Memorandum of Understanding with BCI/CCL
R:~STAFFRPT~CCLMOU.PC 8/16/95 an 2
MEMORANDUM OF UNDEP~TANDING CONCERNING
I~ANNING AREA No. 14 OF ~I~CIFIC PLAN No. 199
BCI/CCL VENTURF~ No. 1 and No. 2
This Memorandum of Understanding, (the "Memorandum") is made
and entered into as of August ,1995 by and between the City
of Temecula (the "Cit~') and BCI/CCL Venture No. 1, L.P.
("BCI/CCL No. 1") and BCI/CCL Venture No. 2, L.P. ("BCI/CCL No.
2"), both California limited partnerships (BCI/CCL No. 1 and
BCI/CCL No. 2 are collectively referred to a "Owner".)
RECITALS=
A. The City Council of the City of Temecula is reviewing and
considering, as provided by law, an Amendment and Restatement of
Development Agreement between City and Owner (the "Draft
Agreement").
B. Owner is developing a residential project in what is known
as Planning Area No. 14 of Specific Plan No. 199, Tract Nos.
23100-1 (8 lots); 23100-2 (15 lots); 23100-3 (28 lots); 23100-4
(23 lots); 23101-2 (28 lots); and 23101-3 (9 lots) for a total of
111 lots (collectively, the "Project"). The Project is currently
subject to Development Agreement No. 5 between the County of
Riverside (the "County") and Kaiser Development Company, a
California corporation; Mesa Homes, a California corporation;
Margarita Village Development Company, a California joint
venture comprised of Buie-Ranch California, Ltd., a California
limited partnership and Nevada Rancho california, Ltd., a
California limited partnership; and Tayco, a California general
partnership comprised of Taylor Woodrow Homes, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, and others dated November 7, 1988 (the "Development
Agreement No. 5"), which requires Owner to pay certain
development fees (the "Development Fee").
C. Riverside County Ordinance No. 659, as adopted by the City,
establishes public facilities and services impact fees for
residential development with City ("RSA Fees"). City requires
these revenues to mitigate the impact of development. City
requires RSA Fees from development of the Project in order to
complete capital projects to mitigate the impact of the
development.
D. As the result of meetings between representatives of the
City and representatives of the Owner, the City has agreed that
the Project would be eligible for a development fee reduction due
to: (i) the excessive level at which the County originally
calculated the Development Fee; and (ii) the entry level nature
of the homes to be built in the Project.
F :\real \843\30064004\menlo5 .a~m
E. Development Agreement No. 5 provided for public facilities
and services impact fees ("County Impact Fees") higher than the
RSA Fees. These higher fees, particularly during the present
recession, unduly discourage and delay development and thereby
prevent City from ever receiving the RSA Fees. Consequently, the
City desires to reduce the County Impact Fees for residential
development in the Project to a level comparable to RSA Fees.
F. The Project has been substantially delayed by reason of
adverse market conditions and the pending bankruptcy of Bramalea
U.S.A., Owner's predecessor in interest. The parties intend by
this Agreement to facilitate new construction within the Project
during the remainder of 1995's selling season (late summer and
fall) in an effort to obtain lost market momentum for the
Project, and avoid the adverse consequences to the Project and
City resulting from further delays in implementing the Project.
G. The Draft Agreement provides for Owner to pay the sum of
Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) for each residential unit as
the Interim Public Facilities Fee. The Draft Agreement provides
for the collection of any Interim Public Facilities Fee to be
deferred until such time as Owner obtained a certificate of
occupancy for the first production home built in the Project.
H. Owner contemplates commencing construction of the homes for
the Project (111 Lots ) prior to acceptance by the City Council
of the Draft Agreement.
I. Owner intends to immediately commence the completion of the
Recreational Facility required incident to the approval of Tract
23103-1 which has been delayed because of adverse market
conditions, and complete said facility by November 10, 1995.
J. City desires, as an accommodation to Owner, to permit Owner
to pay the Interim Public Facilities Fee contemplated in the
Draft Agreement for all the homes in the Project, despite the
fact that the Draft Agreement providing for payment of the
Interim Public Facilities Fee has not yet been approved by City.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants
hereinafter contained, City and Owner agree as follows:
1. Modification of Fee. In lieu of any fee required by
Development Agreement No. 5, RSA Fee or City Public Facilities
Fee, Owner shall pay an Interim Public Facilities Fee in the
amount of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) per dwelling unit
within the Project. If City fails to approve or adopt the Draft
Agreement or if the Interim Public Facilities Fee, as established
by City, is some number other then Three Thousand Dollars
($3,000.00) per dwelling unit, then the fee paid by Owner to
City shall be adjusted accordingly. Owner shall pay any increase
or City shall pay to Owner any decrease within thirty (30) days
F: \real \843\30064004\memoS. agm --2 --
from the effective date of City Council's action on the Amendment
and Restatement of Development Agreement.
2. Fee Deferral. The Interim Public Facilities Fee for all
units within the Project shall be deferred until such time as a
certificate of occupancy has been obtained for the first
production home built in the Project. Upon the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for the first production home within the
Project, Owner shall pay to the City the Interim Public Facility
Fee for each unit for which such fee had been deferred.
Thereafter, the Interim Public Facilities Fee shall be paid at
the time of issuance of building permits for each residential
unit constructed in the Project.
3. Completion of Recreational Facility.
(a) Owner shall commence construction of the Recreational
Facility required incident to the approval of Tract 23103-1
("Recreational Facility") on approximately August 15, 1995.
Owner shall use commercially reasonable efforts to complete the
construction of such facility as soon as practicable, but no
later than November 15, 1995. Owner agrees that City shall not
issue any certificate of occupancy for any dwelling unit
constructed pursuant to any building permit issued on or after
the date of this Memorandum, until such time as the Recreational
Facility is completed and accepted by the City.
(b) Notwithstanding the preceding, Owner's obligations
under this paragraph 3 are expressly conditioned upon (i) Owner
acquiring title to the Property on which the Recreational
Facility is to be constructed, or written permission from the
Owner thereof to construct such facility; and (ii) approval by
the United States Bankruptcy Court of the Third Amendment to
Partnership Agreements for Owner.
4. Indemnity and Cost of Litiqation
4.1 county Litiqation Concernin~ A~reement. In the event
the County seeks to challenge the right of City and Owner to
enter into this Memorandum, and institutes an action, suit or
proceeding to challenge this Memorandum or invalidate and/or
enjoin the enforcement of this Memorandum, City and Owner agree
to cooperate and participate in a joint defense in any action
against the parties, their officers, agents, and employees, from
and against any and all such obligations, liability, suit, claim,
loss, judgment or lien, resulting from such action(s) brought by
County (but excluding actions to expunge any lis pendens) and to
share the costs associated with attorneys' fees and costs that
the parties may incur as the result of any such action or lawsuit
to challenge City and/or Owner's legal authority to enter into
this Memorandum. If the County action is against all impacted
developments for which the City has lowered the county fees, the
F: \real \843\30064004\me~o5. agm -3 -
Owner's defense costs herein shall be its pro rata share among
all impacted landowners based on a faction, the numerator of
which is the total units owned by Owner which are subject to this
Memorandum and the denominator is the total number of units
within the City in which the City has lowered the County Fees.
If the County action is only against Owner with respect to this
Memorandum, and not against other impacted landowners for which
the City has lowered the County fees, then Owner's defense costs
shall be 100% of the attorneys' fees and costs for defense of the
litigation. Damages (including the difference in the amount of
any Interim Public Facilities Fee and the amount of the County
Development Agreement Fee paid by Owner to City pursuant to the
terms of this Memorandum) shall be the responsibility of owner.
To the exten~ Owner has paid Interim Public Facilities Fees
and/or County Development Agreement Fees =o City of which it is
adjudicated (by final judgment of a court of competent
jurisdiction) are lawfully the funds of County, City shall pay
such sums to County and Owner shall have such liability for the
payment of the difference between such fees reduced by the amount
paid by the City. City and Owner shall mutually agree on legal
counsel to be retained to defend any such action(s) brought by
the County as herein provided. City and Owner each reserve the
right to withdraw from the defense of the County litigation in
the even= the County prevails at the trial level and there is an
appeal. If either party withdraws after the trial and there is
an appeal, the remaining party shall pay all the costs and fees
associated with said appeal. As a matter of agreement between
BCI/CCL No. 1 and BCI/CCL No. 2, all costs are associated with
indemnity set forth in this paragraph 4 , or liabilities
described in paragraphs 4.2 and 4.4 below, shall be divided
between such parties sixty percent (60%) to BCI/CCL No. 2 and
forty percent (40%) to BCI/CCL No. 1.
4.2 Public Facilities Fees Shortfall. In the event the
County prevails in any legal action or other proceeding to
challenge, set aside, or enjoin the enforcement of this
Memorandum and a trial court determines by final judgment or
order that the Owner and/or the City is liable to make up any
shortfall between the amount of the Interim Public Facilities Fee
or the City Public Facilities Fee, as the case may be, and the
County Development Agreement Fee which would otherwise have been
imposed pursuant to Development Agreement No. 5, then Owner shall
be responsible for paying any such.shortfall subject to City's
payment to County of any amounts collected and held by City under
the terms of Development Agreement No. 5. Such payment by City
to County shall reduce Owner's liability to County for payment of
such fees by a like amount paid by City.
4.3 County Prevails in Litigation - Severability. In the
event the County prevails at the trial court level against the
City or the Owner as described in Section 4.1 of this Memorandum,
the amount of the Interim Public Facilities Fee or the City
F: \real \843\30064004\memo5. agm --4 --
Public Facilities Fee, as the case may be, shall revert to the
amount of the County Development Agreement Fee in effect at the
time of entry of the final judgment in favor of the County (or
such lesser amount as determined by the Court). In the event his
Memorandum is held to be invalid or unenforceable by a trial
court of competent jurisdiction, Owner shall thereafter pay the
County Development Agreement Fee as provided in Section 4.2 of
Development Agreement No. 5 (or such lesser amount as determined
by the Court). All other provisions of this Memorandum or any
subsequent agreements relating to the Project shall remain valid
and enforceable notwithstanding said ruling of invalidity.
4.4 Third Party Litiqation Concerninq A~reement. Owner
shall defend, at its expense, including attorneys' fees,
indemnify, and hold harmless City, its agents, officers and
employees from any claim, action or proceeding against City, its
agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or
annul the approval of this Memorandum or the approval of any
permit granted pursuant to this Memorandum brought by a third
party other than the County, which claim, action or proceeding is
based upon this Memorandum. City shall promptly notify Owner of
any such claim, action, or proceeding, and City shall cooperate
in the defense. If City fails to promptly notify Owner of any
such claim, action, or proceeding, or if City fails to cooperate
in the defense, Owner shall not thereafter be responsible to
defend, indemnify, or hold harmless City. City may in its
discretion participate in the defense of any such claim, action
or proceeding.
4.5 Termination of Memorandum of UnderstandinC. If the
Draft Agreement is approved by the' City Council, this Memorandum
shall terminate upon the effective date of the Draft Agreement.
If the Draft Agreement is disapproved by final action by the City
Council, then the obligations of Owner under this Memorandum
shall terminate and Owner thereafter shall be subject to the
terms of Development Agreement No. 5.
5. Rancho California Road Fund. Owner and City acknowledge and
agree that no building permits for any dwelling unit within the
Project shall be issued by the City until such time as the Rancho
california Road Fund has been funded, as required by the terms of
the agreement establishing such Fund.
IN WITNESS W~EREOF, the parties executed this Memorandum as of
this day August, 1995.
F: \real \843\30064004\rner~5. agm
By:
-5-
CITY OF TEMECULA
Jeff Stone, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
BCI/CCL VENTURE NO. 1, L.P.
California limited partnership
and BCI/CCL VENTURE NO. 2,
L.P., a California limited
partnership
BY: CCL CHARDONAY HILLS,
INC., a California
corporation, their
General Partner
By
Its
F: \real \843\30064004\memoS. agm --6 -
ITEM #6
APPOINT1WF~NT TO DESIGN GUIDELINES
TECItNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ITEM #7
lvlEMORANDUI~
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
August 21, 1995
Plmming Application No. 94-0128 (Conditional Use Permit) - A proposal to
demolish and rebuild a 2,500 square foot gas station with a convenience store
and concurrent sale of beer and wine located at the southeast comer of Rancho
California Road and Front Street
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
CONTINUE Planning Application No. 94-0128 to the
Planning Commission Meeting of September 18, 1995
BACKGROUND
This item was continued by the Planning Commission at their meeting on July 17, 1995.
Staff was directed to work with the applicant and address the concerns of the Planning
Commission. Staff mailed a letter to the applicant on July 19, 1995, reiterating the concerns
of the Planning Commission (reference Attachment No. 1). The applicant was given August
7, 1995 as a deadline for re-submittal. The applicant did not meet this deadline and
forwarded a letter to staff requesting that the project be continued. Therefore, staff
recommends that the project be continued to the September 18, 1995 Planning Commission
meeting.
Attachments:
Letter from Staff to Applicant (July 17, 1995) - Blue Page 2
Letter from Applicant - Blue Page 3
R:\STAFFRPT~I28PA94.PC2 8/15/95 mf 1
Attachment No. 1
Letter from Staff to Applicant (July 17, 1995)
s ri I 0
Jnb' ].9, 1995
{909) 694-1989 · FAX 19091 694-1999
Ms. April Smith
Service Station Services
3 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 711
Santa Ana, CA 92707
SUBYKT:
Plm~ing Commission Comments regarding p]annlng Application No. 940128
- a proposal to demolish an existing service station and rebuild a gas station
with a convenience store and concurrent sale of beer and wine located at the
southeast comer of Raucho California Road and Front Street
Dear Ms. Smith:
The above referenced project was continued by the Planning Commission at their July 17,
1995 meeting. The Planning Commission requested that the following items be addressed:
Site Plan
Either reduce the square footage of the building or reduce the number of gasoline
dispensers.
Relocate the trash enclosure next to the vapor extract enclosure. The chain link
fencing for the vapor extract enclosure shall be replaced with concrete block. Colon
and materials shall be consistent with the building.
Landscape Plan
Retain as much of the existing landscaping as possible.
Expand the amount of landscaping on the site to provide for ultimate right-of-way
development on Front Street and Rancho California Road.
Revise the plant palette for the new landscaping, omitting Dwarf Oleander (shrub) and
California Sycamore (tree) from the palette. Include both evergreen and deciduous
trees on the palette. I have enclosed a copy of the landscape palette from the Old
Town Temecula Specific Plan to be used as a guide for plant selection.
Tree sizes shall include minixnum tree trunk widths (caliper should be specified) and
height
Other
7. Revise and submit color elevations that reflect the colors used for the project.
8. Provide samples of the roof tile that will be used for the project.
9. planning Staff is going to recommend that the project be conditioned to be consistent
with the CLIP handbook. Ray stated that they would be willing to further restrict the
houn for beer and wine sales. Please coordinate this with him as what he would like
to bring back before the Planning Commission.
10. Pleas~ revis~ conc~ntntion of beer and wine license kfforma~on utilizing the latest
Det>~,auent of Finance population statistics for the City of Temecula.
11. Coordinate with the Depaztalent of Public Works regarding the language contained in
the proposed Condition of Approval No. 66.b. which reads: "The applicant Shall
record a wriRen agx~ement with the City of Temecula to participate in its fair-share
cost of the improvements along Rancho California Road and Front Street as directed
by the Dep~,huent of Public Works. The Agreement shall be subject to the approval
of the City Engineer and the City Attorney."
12. P1eas~ submit ten (10) full size landscape plans and one 8 1/2" x 11" reduction of the
landscape plan_
13. Please submit ten (10) full size elevations and one 8 1/2" x 11" reduction of the
elevations.
14. Ple~s~ submit ten (10) full size site plans and one 8 1/2" x 11" reduction of the site
plan.
This project was continued to the August 21, 1995 planning Commission hearing. In order
to meet this hearing date, all items discussed above must be addressed and submitted to the
Planning Depa~m,ent no later than Monday, August 7, 1995.
Please call me at (909) 694-6400 if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Matthew Fagan, AICP
Assistant Planner
CO'
Ray Benbeali, Project Manager
UNOCAL Petroleum Products Company
17700 Castleton, Suke 500
City of Industry, CA 91748
Guideline 6 - Minimum Landscape Size
Trees should be 15 gallon size at ~*ne of planting. Shrubs should
be a minimum of 5 gallon-size at time of planting. Trees, shrubs,
and vines should have body and fullness that is typical of the
spedes.
Preferred Tree Palette
Guideline 1 - Preferred Old Town Trees
The following lists the recommended alternative spedes for landscaping
private property in Old Town. Other chought tolerant/low maintenance
native spedes may be presented and appzoved by the City staff..
The following trees re selected for their color, height, and fo~rL.~
· Sycamore;
· Liquidamber;
· Everg-reen Pear;
· C~lifornia Pepper;
· Red Gum Eucalyptus;
· Poplar Spp;
· Pinus Spp;
· Olive Tree; and
· Oak.
Tree Planting Specifications
Trees should be planted rising industry accepted methods and any re-
ouirements for tree pla~ntmgs provided in the Development Code.
:V - 52
City of Temes'dla
Old Tou,,n 5pec~ffc Plan
Attachment No. 2
Letter from Applicant
April 8, 1995
SERV
STAT
SERV
CE
ON
CES
RECEIVED
AUG 10 199,5
MP. Steven J. Ford
Chairman
Planning Commission
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Dr.
Temecula, Ca. 92~90
SUBJECT:
UNOCAL CUP APPLICATION # 94-0128
LS# 6519 - RANCHO CALIFORNIA & FRONT
Dear Mr. Ford:
As you know the above application was continued from your July 17 meeting until August 21. Despite
recommendation of approval by staff, the commission made additional suggestions which may make this project
unworkable; for this reason UNO CAL is requesting an additional continuance. LrNO CAL has a real desire to be a
good neighbor, but the economics must work. We would like the additional time to discuss the project with you,
in an effort to find common ground.
There are two items of concern; the participation in funding for the bridge over the freeway and the request to
downsize the project. Regarding the bridge funding, UNOCAL has agreed to participate in a "fair share" agreement
to improve the intersection of Rancho California and Front, based on the additional impacts of our project; however,
we do not feel that expanding the impact area to ~nclude the bridge can be justified.
The second concern, deals with the desire for UNOCAL to either reduce the size of the store or reduce the number
of pump stations. The request appears to be motivated by a question as to the ability of UNOCAL to meet
appropriate setbacks and landscaping once UNOCAL dedicates [and for road improvements. This is particularly
sensitive since we I believe, that your dedication request does not stand the test of nexus and proportionality as
mandated by U.S. Supreme Court decision "Dolan". Our project impacts the intersection by less than .5%, and
according to Dolan the City can only require mitigation to relieve impacts of the project; this would equate to
approx. 1/2 ft. on Front (as opposed to the City request of 4 fi) and I ft. on R. ancho California (as opposed to the
City request of 12 ft). In other jurisdictions we have agreed to dedicate but have been give credit for both setback
and landscape a.s if the dedicated [and was still UNOCAL's.
This is a logicat compromise in that the City obtains needed land without the invoking eminent domain.
I believe we can address your other expressed concerns. Please review our project in light of the above and see if
there maybe atime where Mr. BenboaliofUNOCAL and mySelfmaybe ableto meetwith you. Your cooperation
will be appreciated.
incer , ~ /
cc: Matthew Fagan, City of Temecula Planning
Commissioners: Fahey, Miller, Slaven and Webster
Kay Benboali, UNOCAL Corporation
ITEM #8
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie lYonoske, Planning Manager
August 21, 1995
Planning Application No. 95-0015 (Tentative tract Map No 27993)- A request
for approval of Tentative Tract Map lqo. 27993 within Planning Area 11 of
Specific Plan No. 213, Silverhawk, to create 146 single family residential lots
and one open space lot.
Prepared By: Sated Naaseh, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
CONTINUE Planning Application No. 95-0015 off
calendar.
BACKGROUND
This item was continued by the Planning Commission at their meeting on August 7, 1995.
The applicant was directed to work with staff to address the concerns of the Planning
Commission. Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, the City Council continued
the annexation request for 310 acres which included the Tentative Tract Map 27993 for sixty
days. Further, the City Council requested staff to schedule a workshop for City Council to
discuss annexation policies. This workshop has been tentatively scheduled for September,
19, 1995. The Planning Commission is invited to attend this workshop. The applicant is
requesting the Planning Commission to continue this item off calendar, since the City
Council continued the annexation request. A copy of the applicant's request has been
included as Attachment No. 1.
Attachments:
1. Letter from Applicant - Blue Page 2
R:XSTAFFRFl'x128PA°A.PC2 8/16/95 mf ]
Attachment No. 1
Letter from Applicant
HRSTER PLRH )EVELOPHENTS 714~75671$' P,Q2
MPD
16, 1995
RF,: Wineheste' Properties Annexation; Presnnexation Armneat;
TealsUre l]ract Map No. 27993
OnbehalfofthePuleHomcCoqx~_.r~andinlighiofiherecentCityCoundlacHon~at~
August 8, 199J mee~ wereque~ttt abov~refamced permit appikations bc cou~uued off
Itimouur~thalasaresuhoftheabcrv~rdetmcedmee~n=-theCityCouucilwillbe
holdings'workshop on ber19,199~whewuinleCxxm~m~lhreviewandpossiblyrevime
Atlt6stim~Pttl~deitesmtecelveaclenrd~emlonfi'omtheCoanc~tol~wlt2oany
ofl~epetmita~= Hense~ive mea,'~,l! ifyouhavennyquestie~szelnledtothismatz;.
110 Ncwpon Center Drj. ve. Suite 200 · N,~wr~n B'e~ch, CA 9~0 · (714) 729-1560 · Fax (714) 499-2'752
ITEM #9
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
C1TY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 21, 1995
Planning Application No. 9~-0068 - Plot Plan (Channell Commercial Corporation)
Fast Track
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration for PA95-0068;
2. APPROVE the Mitigation Monitoring Program for PA95-0068;
3. ADOPT Resolution No. 95- , approving PA95-0068 based
upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report;
and;
4. APPROVE Planning Application No. 95-0068 subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Channell Commercial Corporation
REPRESENTATIVE: Julia Carroll
PROPOSAL: To construct a 99,840 square foot warehouse facility.
LOCATION: North of County Center Drive and west of the intersection of County
Center and Equity Drives
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial)
North: M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial)
South: M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial)
East: M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial)
West: M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial)
Not requested
BP (Business Park)
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Northeast: Channell Commercial Corporation
Northwest: Vacant
South: Vacant
West: Office Buildings
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area: 5.29 gross acres/4.97 net acres
Total Site Area: 216,493 square feet
Building Area: 99,840 square feet
Landscape Area: 24,201 square feet
Paved Area: 92,452 square feet
Parking Provided: 73 spaces
Standard: 70 spaces
Handicap: 3 spaces
Building Height: 32'0"
Project Density - Floor Area Ratio: .46
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. PA95-0068 was formally submitted to the Planning Departmere on July 18,
1995. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on July 27, 1995. Planning
Application No. PA94-0068 was deemed complete on July 28, 1995. This application is a Fast Track
project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is a proposal to construct a 99,840 square foot warehouse and distribution facility for
Channell Commercial Corporation. Charmell Commercial Corporation manufactures the boxes for cable
wiring, most of which are located in the right-of-way (parkway) of residential lawns. The office area will
comprise approximately 4,000 square feet (1,000 current and 3,000 future), with the remainder of the
site committed to warehousing. Proposed hours of operation are between 6:00 a.m. and 12 midnight
daily. The project is considered in-fill, with development to the northeast and west.
ANALYSIS
Parking/On-Site Circulation
The applicant has submitted a parking needs analysis for the project. Based upon this analysis, seventy-
one (71) parking spaces are required under Ordinance No. 348 for this use. The project has a total of
seventy-three (73) parking spaces. Access to the project will be from County Center Drive. The
northernmost driveway will be restricted to right-in and right-out turning movements because of its
proximity to an existing adjacent driveway. The southernmost driveway will allow full turning
movements. Staff has determined that both parking and on-site circulation are adequate for the proposed
use.
R:\STAFFP,.PT\68PA95.PC 8/16/95 mf 2
Architecture
The building will be conswucted of tilt-up concrete and will be sandblasted. The building colon are to
resemble those of Charmell Commercial Corporation's existing building on Ynez Road (sandblasted tilt-up
concrete). All doors will be grey. Window mullions are proposed to be black. Window glazing will
be smoke tint.
Area Compatibility
Existing buildings within the vicinity are similar in scale. It is likely that futur~ buildings in the
immediate proximity to this project will be compatible in terms of floor area ratio. This will be ensured
because General Plan Land Use Designations in the area are BP (Business Park).
ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Existing zoning for the site is M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial). Warehouse/distribution with
office facilities are permitted within the M-SC zone with the approval of a plot plan pursuant to Section
18.30 of Ordinance No. 348. The General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is BP (Business Park).
According to the Draft Development Code, warehouse/distribution with office facilities would be
permiRed in the zone. Until the new Development Code is adopted, Staff utilizes the provisions
contained in Ordinance No. 348. The project as proposed is consistent with Ordinance No. 348 and the
General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study has been prepared for this
project. The Initial Study determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, these effects are not considered m be significant due to mitigation measures contained
in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the project. These will mitigate any
potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance; therefore Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission adopt a Negative Declaration for the project. Pursuant to the CalifOrnia Environmental
Qualid, Act (CEQA), a mitigation monitoring program (MMP) was prepared for this project. Areas that
require mitigation monitoring include: earth, air, water, animal life, noise, light and glare, natural
resources, transportation/circulation and public services.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project has been determined to be consistera with the City's General Plan and all other City
Ordinance requirements. This project is a Fast Track application.
FINDINGS
The proposed use conforms to all General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements
of state law and City ordinances. It is likely that the project is permitted within the General Plan
Land Use designation of BP (Business Park). In addition, the project is permitted under the
existing Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-SC) zoning.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and
general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the
present and future logical development of the surrounding property.
R:\STAFFRPT\68PA95.PC 8/16/95 mf 3
The proposed use or action complies with all other requirements of state law and local
ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Governmental Code Section 65360,
Section 18.30 (Plot Plan) of Ordinance No. 348.
The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the
community. An Illit'Ill Study was prepared and circulated for this project. The Initial Study
indicated that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment,
the significant effects would be mitigated to a level less than significant. This is accomplished
through project design and mitigation measures contained in the Conditions of Approval.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the
lot configuration, access, and intensity of use, because the proposed planning application (Plot
Plan), as conditioned, complies with the standards contained within the City's General Plan and
Ordinance No. 348.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project is an in-fill project, located
in an area of existing and proposed industrial development.
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by,
vehicular traffic. Access to the project site is from a publicly maintained road (County Center
Drive).
The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project.
Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these
applications and herein incorporamd by reference.
R:\STAFFRPT\68PA95.PC 8/16/95 mf 4
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
Initial Study - Blue Page 20
Exhibits - Blue Page 37
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Designation
D. Site Plan
E. Elevations
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 38
R:\STAFFRPT\68PA95.K: 8/16/95 mf 5
AqTFACI4MENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 95-
R:\STAFFR~T\68PA95.PC 8/16/95 mf ~
ATIA~ NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THY, CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 9:~0068 TO CONSTRUCT A 99,840
SQUARE FOOT WAreHOUSE AND DISTRIBUTION
FACII,rFY ON 4.9 ACRES LOCATED ON ~ NORTH
SIDE OF COUNTY CENTER DRIVE AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 910-110-039
WIIEREAS, The Channell Commercial Corporation fried Planning Application No. 95-
0068 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and
Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WltEREAS, Planning Application No. 95-0068 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. 95-0068 on
August 21, 1995, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested
persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon heating and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Commission considered all facts
relating to Planning Application No. 95-0068;
NOW, THEREFORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ C1TY OF
TEMZECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
95-0068 makes the foliowing specific findings, to wit:
1. The proposed use conforms to all General Plan requirements and with all
applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. It is likely that the project is permitted
within the General Plan Land Use designation of BP (Business Park). In addition, the project
is permitted under the existing Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-SC) zoning.
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and
is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property.
3. The proposed use or action complies with all other requirements of state
law and local ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Governmental Code
Section 65360, Section 18.30 (Plot Plan) of Ordinance No. 348.
4. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or
general weftaxe of the community. An Initial Study was prepared and circulated for this project.
The Initial Study indicated that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on
the environment, the significant effects would be mitigated to a level less than significant. This
is accomplished through project design and mitigation measures contained in the Conditions of
Approval.
5. The site is ': uitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the
size and shape of the lot configuration, access, and intensity of use, because the proposed
planning application (Plot Plan), as conditioned, complies with the standards contained within
the City's General Plan and Ordinance No. 348.
6. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project is an
in-fill project, located in an area of existing and proposed industrial development.
7. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open
to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. Access to the project site is from a publicly maintained
road (County Center Drive).
8. The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they
are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed
project.
9. Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental
documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference.
A. As conditioned pursuant to Attachment No. 2, Planning Application No. 95-0068,
as proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with
the present and future development of the surrounding property.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project
indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in
the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration,
therefore, is hereby granted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
approves Planning Application No. 95-0068 to construct a 99,840 square foot warehouse and
distribution facility on 4.9 acres located on the north side of County Center Drive and known
as Assessor's Parcel Number 910-110-039 subject to the following:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made
a part hereof.
Section $. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 21st day of August, 1995.
STEVEN J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I H'ERERy CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 21st day of
August, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNFffI'
SECRETARY
R:\STAFFRF~68PA95.PC 8116195 mf 9
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. 95-0068, Plot Plan
Project Description: To construct a 99,840 square foot warehouse and distribution
facility
Assessor's Parcel No.: 910-110-039
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City
and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and
agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set
aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City,
or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative
body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning
Application No. 95-0068 {Plot Plan) which action is brought within the appropriate
statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4
(Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and
21167). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or
proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the
defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully,
developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect,
or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers,
employees, or agents.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it
shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization
contemplated by this approval.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D approved
with Planning Application No. 95-0068, or as amended by these conditions.
a. A minimum of seventy-three (73) parking spaces shall be provided.
b. A minimum of three (3) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided.
c. Three (3) Class II bicycle spaces shall be provided.
R:\STAFFRPT\68PA95,PC 8/16/95 mf 11
4. Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit E or as amended by these
conditions.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit F (color and material
board), or as amended by these conditions.
Material Colors
Concrete panels
Glazing (Windows)
Aluminum (Window Mullion)
Metal (doors)
Grey/Black
Smoke tint
Black
Dark Grey
Landscape plans shall conform substantially with Exhibit G. Fifty percent (50%) of the
trees shall be 24" box. All existing and future utiltity vaults shall be screeneed to the
satisfaction of the Planning Manager.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
The applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that
ordinance which is based on (the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for
development). Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat
Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by Ordinance No. 663, the
applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as
implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be
submitted to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation Fees.
10.
Three (3) copies of a Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to
the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate
filing fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall
be shown.
11.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
12, An application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director.
13. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
R:\STAFFRPT\68PA95.PC 8/16/95 mf 12
14.
15.
16.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation,
and shading plans.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a
condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free
of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and
in good working order.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal,
displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than
70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space
at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space
finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space
finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous
place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22
inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or
license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be
towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be
reclaimed at or by telephone
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at
least 3 square feet in size.
17.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to
guarantee the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the
approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Department of Planning.
18.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
19.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
20.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical; 1990 National Electrical Code; California Administrative
Code Title 24 Energy and Disabled access regulations and the Temecula Municipal
Code. (1994 editions due for adoption by September, 1995).
21.
Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
R:\STAFFRPT~68PA95,PC 8/16/95 mf 13
22. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
23.
All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations.
(California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994).
24.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting
and fire alarm systems.
25.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1991 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
26. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
27.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
28.
Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
29. The occupancy classification of the proposed use shall be B-2.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and
shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true
meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department
of Public Works.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their
omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
General Requirements
30.
A Grading Permit for either rough or precise (including all onsite flat work and
improvements) grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way.
31.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction. within an existing or proposed City
right-of-way.
32.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be
coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements
contiguous to the site.
33. All plans shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
R:\STAFFRPT\6gPA95,PC 8/16/95 mf 14
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
34.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
35.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
State Water Resources Control Board
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department .
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
36.
A Grading Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the
Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code,
Chapter 70, City Standards, and as additionally required in these Conditions of
Approval.
37.
A Soils Report prepared by a registered Soils Engineer shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address
all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of
engineered structures and pavement sections.
38.
An Erosion Control Plan in accordance with City Standards shall be designed by a
registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works.
39.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
40.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review.
41.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weedfree condition and shall be
either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures
as approved by the Department of Public Works.
42.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area
Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is
payable to Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to
issuance of any permit. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has been
already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51,
52.
The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for
offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public
Works.
Concentrated onsite runoff shall be conveyed in concrete ribbon gutters or underground
storm drain facilities to an adequate outlet as determined by the Department of Public
Works.
Letter of approval or a drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property
owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent
property. A copy of the drainage easement shall be submitted to the Department of
Public Works for review prior to recordation. The location of the recorded easement
shall be delineated on the precise grading plan.
The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto
or through the site. In the event the Department of Public Works permits the use of
streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Section XI of Ordinance No. 460 will
apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited
for drainage purposes, the Developer shall provide adequate facilities as approved by
the Department of Public Works.
The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration
of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be
provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing
facilities or by securing a drainage easement.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be
recorded by separate instrument as directed by the Department of Public Works.
The adequacy of the capacity of existing downstream drainage facilities shall be
verified. Any upgrading or upsizing of those facilities, as required, shall be provided as
part of development of this project.
All necessary grading permit requirements shall have been accomplished to the
satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
Street improvement plans including parkway trees and street lights prepared by a
registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works shall be
required for all public streets prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit. Final plans
and profiles shall show the location of exiting utility facilities within the right-of-way
as directed by the Department of Public Works.
R:\STAFFRF~68PA95.~C 8116/95 mf 16
53. The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the improvement plans and/or
precise grading plans to be submitted to the Department of Public Works:
Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P,C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as
approved by the Department of Public Works.
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through undersidewalk drains.
54,
A Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, and approved
by the Department of Public Works. Where construction on existing City streets is
required, traffic shall remain open at all times and the traffic control plan shall provide
for adequate detour during construction.
55.
Bus bays will be designed at all existing and proposed bus stops as directed by the
Department of Public Works,
56.
The Developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed
guaranteeing the construction of the following public and private improvements in
conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department
of Public Works.
Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, and
striping as appropriate.
b. Landscaping (slopes and parkways)
c. Erosion control and slope protection
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
57.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Fire Department
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
58.
All necessary construction or encroachment permits have been submitted/accom plished
to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
R:\STAFFRFr~68PA95.PC ~/16~'95 mf 17
59.
All building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and
elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction
and site conditions.
60.
The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as
established per acre/unit as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
61.
The Developer shall record a reservation for reciprocal access easement between
Parcels 6 and 7 of Parcel Map 21361.
62.
The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the intent to develop.
Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards prior to issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy.
63.
The Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or proiect, including that for traffic and public facility
mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be
paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or
final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date
on which the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase
thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee,
a copy of which has been provided to the Developer. Concurrently, with executing this
Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility
fee. The amount of the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000.
The Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in
excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such
fees). By execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest the
provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee
district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee
for this project; provided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
Prior to the Issuance of Certification of Occupancy
64.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
65.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards, including but not limited to curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive
approaches, parkway trees, signing, and striping as directed by the Department of
Public Works.
66.
A "Right Turn Only" sign shall be installed at the northerly driveway that provides
access to the site off Commerce Center Drive.
R:\STAFFRPT~68PA95.]~C 8/16/95 mf 18
67. In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these conditions,
such easements shall be obtained by the Developer; or, in the event the City is required
to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the
Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City for the acquisition of such
easement at the Developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5,
which shall be at no cost to the City.
68. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works.
69. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and
replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
70. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
OTHER AGENCIES
7 I, The applicant shal comply with the recommendations contained in the Riverside County
Health Department's transmittal dated July 25, 1995, a copy of which is attached.
72. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contined in the Riverside County
Fire Department's transmittal dated August 16, 1995, a copy of which is attached.
73. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal
Water District's transmittal dated July 24, 1995, a copy of which is attached.
74. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal
Water District's transmittal dated August'8, 1995, a copy of which is attached.
75. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the City of Temecula
Police Department's transmittal dated August 1, 1995, a copy of which is attached.
76. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riversled Transit
Agency's transmittal dated July 21, 1995, a copy of which is attached.
I have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval.
Applicant Name
R:\STAFFRFr\68PA95J~C 8/16/95 mf 19
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
. FIRE DEPARTMENT
c'- ~ I. M. HARRIS 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE · PERRIS, CALII:ORNIA 92570 · (909) 657-3183
· FIRE CHIEF
August 16, 1995
TO:
~rlN:
RE:
PLANNING DI~ARTMENT
MA1TH~W FAGAN
PA95-0068
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced plot plan, the Fire
Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with
Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards:
The f'~re Department is required to set a minimum fn'e flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial building using the procedures established in Ordinance
546. A fire flow of 3500 GPM for a 3 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating
pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6"x4"x2-2
1/2"), wilt be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the
building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall
be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water plans to the Fixe Department for
review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire
Department approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location,
spacing and minimum fire flow. Once the plans are signed by the local water company,
the orig-inals shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature.
The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the
appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on the
job site.
5. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit, with the City of
Temecula, the sum of $.25 per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer Shall be responsible to
submit a plan check fee of $582.00 to the City of Temecula.
THE FOLLOWrING CONDITIONS MUST BE MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings. The post indicator valve and fire
depaxttnent connection shall be located to the front of the building, within 50 feet of a
hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building
will be automatically fn'e sprinkled must be included on the title page of the building
plans.
The building shall be equipped with a manual fn-e alarm system with audio/visual devices
for occupant notification and monitored to a U.L. approved remote receiving station.
9. All exit doors shall be openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort.
10.
Install panic hardware and exit signs as per chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code.
Low level exit signs shall also be provided, where exit signs are required by section
3314(a).
11.
Install portable fn'e extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a certified
extinguisher company for proper placement.
12.
It is prohibited to use/process or store any materials in this occupancy that would classify
it as an "H" occupancy per Chapter 9 of the Uniform Building Code.
13.
Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location
of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street direc~y in line with
fire hydrant.
14.
Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the
Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate
lane painting and or signs.
15.
Street address shall be posted, in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the
street side of the building with a contrasting background.
16.
Applicant/developer shall be responsible to provide or show there exists conditions set
forth by the Fire Department.
17. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and
Safety Office.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Depatiment
Planning and engineering section (909)694-6439.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Depa~iment Planner
hun Cabral
Fire Safety Specialist
TO:
FROM:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: July 25, 1995
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
A : Matthew Fagan
~'C~L~a2E~H~GN, Environmental Health Specialist III
PLOT PLAN NO. PA95-0068
The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Hot Plan No. PA95-0068 and
has no objections. Sanitax7 sewer and water services may be available in this area.
PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL, for health clearance, the following
items are required:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water agency.
b)
Three complete sets of plans for each food establiskmem will be submitted,
including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order
to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For
specific reference, please contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909) 358-5172.
c)
A clearance letter from the HaTardous Services Materials Management Branch
(909) 358-5055 will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for:
i) Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.4.
ii) Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.3.
iii)
Emergency Response Plans Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance #
651.2.).
iv) Waste reduction management.
CH:dr
(909) 275-8980
NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered, can be applicable at time of
Building Plan review for final Department of Environmental Health clearance.
cc: Becky Johnson
Doug Thompson
hncho
Wmr
July 24, 1995
Ans 'd ............ .
John F. Hennigar
Genera[ Manager
Phillip L. Forbes
E. P. '~[~oh" Lemons
Kenneth C. Deal)
Perry R. Louck
Linda M. Fregoso
C. Michael Co~en
Best. Best & ~eger
Mr. Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Depat'tment
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
SUBJECT:
Water Availability
Parcel Map No. 21361, Parcel No. 7
APN 910-110-039, PA95-0068 (Plot Plan)
Dear Mr. Fagan:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements
between RCWD and the propercy owner.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
wp95~SB:SD:eb06&tF186
cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician
Eastern Municipal Water District
August 8, 1995
RECEIVED
AUG 11 1995
Mr. Matthew Fagan, Project Planner
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecuta, CA 92590
SUBJECT: Parcel Map 21361, Parcel 7, Channel1
Corporation, County Center Drive
Commercial
Dear Mr. Fagan:
We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which
describe the subject project. Our comments are outlined below:
General
It is our understanding the subject project is a proposal to
construct a 99,840 sq. ft. warehouse facility on parcel 7 of Parcel
Map 21361 by Chantell Corporation on County Center Drive, Temecula
The subject project is located within the District's sanitary sewer
service area, however, it must be understood the available service
capabilities of the District's systems are continually changing due
to the occurrence of development within the District and programs
of systems improvement. As such, the provision of service will be
based on the timing of the subject project, the status of the
District's permit to operate, and the service agreement between the
District and the developer of the subject project.
Sanitary Sewer
The subject project is considered tributary to the District's
Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF).
The nearest existing TVRWRF system sanitary sewer facilities to the
subject project are as follows:
8-inch diameter gravity sanitary sewer in County Center Drive
along the project's frontage.
Other Issues
The applicant shall coordinate with a District Customer Service New
Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinro. California 92581-8300 · Telephone (9091 925-7676 · Fax 1909) 929-0257
Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacmto Avenue, San Jacinto · Customer Service/Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hemet, CA
Mr. Matthew Fagan
PM 21361
August 8, 1995
Page 2
Business Representative at (909) 766-1822 for determination of
requirements, Source Control Compliance, Agreement, and payment of
appropriate fees. One-stop tracking shall be coordinated by Ms.
Judith Conacher at (909) 766-1810, ext. 4409.
Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel
free to contact this office at (909) 766-1810, ext. 4468.
Sincerely,
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Kevin L. Crew, P.E.
Senior Customer Service Engineer
KLC/cz
AB 95-697
(wp-ntwk-PA 950068.c|z)
P-2
City of Temecula
Temecula Police Department
To: Matt Fagan Date: August 1 , 1995
Fr: Dep. Sanchez
Re: Conditions of Approval - Channel Commercial Corp.
The following conditions of approval are for the above referenced application:
1) Maximum amount of lighting allowabie per Mt. Palomar restrictions in parking
area of this facility and around the bugding perimeter.
Z) Low density landscaping (shrubbery) in parking area and around the building,
specifically window area's.
3) The applicant must provide the pollee department with a 24-hour emergency
phone number.
4) !t is also ~ecommended that the applicant install a security alarm in the facility.
5) If multjple end/or constant problems adse at the establishment which adversely
impact the Pofice Department, the Police Department can at the discretion of
the Police Chief, assign officers to work at the establishment. The number of
officers assigned and the hours and days worked is also at the discretlorl of the
Police Chief. Any officers so assigned will be at the current extra duty rate of
pay and will be paid for by the owner of the establishment.
The above recommendations by the Police Department To help minimize
potential criminal problems.
Ri~h'ar~
Police Officer
Temecula Police Department
(909) 696-3000
July 21, 1995
Matthew Fagan
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RECEIVED
J U L 2 1995
Ans'd ............
Riverside Transit Agency
1825 Third Street
P.O. Box 59968
Riverside, CA 92517
Phone: (909) 684-0850
Fax: (909) 684-1007
Plot Plan #95-0068: 99,840 s.f. warehouse on 5 acres
Location: WS County Center Drive, S. of Equity Drive
Applic~t: Charmell Commercial Corporation
APN 910-110-039
Thank you for the opportunity to review this application. The project site is located on RTA
Route 23 (A & B). Currently, the only bus stop on County Center Drive is the County
Government Center. Another stop near Equity Drive may be needed as development continues
in the area. RTA requests that street improvements along the project frontage be designed to
accommodate a wheelchair-accessible bus stop near the northerly driveway.
A design detail which illustrates the clear zone required for wheelchair lift operations at bus
stops is enclosed. An eight-foot sidewalk width in the potential bus stop zone will be sufficient.
The applicant is welcome to contact RTA for more information on bus stop development and
transit service in the area.
Sincerely,
enclosure
f
II
i~
..................... ~.:'
Z6
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
INITIAL STUDY
R:\STAFFRPT\68PA95.PC 8116/95 raf 20
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Initial Environmental Study
I. BACKGROUND INFORMA~ON
II.
1. Name of Project:
2. Case Numbers:
3. Location of Project:
4. Description of Project:
5. Date of Environmental
Assessment:
6. Name of Proponent:
7. Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
Channell Commercial Corporation Warehouse
Planning Application No. 95-0068
North of County Center Drive, west of the intersection of County
Center and Equity Drives
Construction of a 99,840 square foot warehouse and distribution
facility.
July 27, 1995
Charmell Commercial Corporation
26040 Ynez Road
Temecula, CA 92591
(909) 694-9160
ENVIRON1VIENTAL EVIPACTS
(Explanations to all the answers are provided in Section III)
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or over covering
of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief feature~?
d. The destruction, covering or modification .of any unique
geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on
or off the site?
f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion?
g. The modification of any wash, channel, creek. river or lake?
Yes Maybe N__qo
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:\STAFFRPT\68PA95.PC 8/16/95 mf
h, Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as
earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, liquefaction, ground
failure, or similar hazards?
i. Any development within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, temperature, or moisture or any
change in climate, whether locally or regionally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage paRems, or the rate and
amount of surface runoff?.
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface
water quality, including but not limited to, temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions, withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer
by cuts or excavations?
h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such
as flooding?
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native
species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and
aquatic plants)?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
__x
R:\STAFFRPT~68PA95.PC 8/16[95 naf 22
Yes
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or
endangered species of plants? __
c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species? __
d. Reduction in the acreage of any agricultural crop? _
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of
animals (animals includes all land animals, birds, reptiles, fish,
amphibians, shellfish, benthic organisms, and/or insects)? __
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or
endangered species of animals? __
c. The introduction of new wildlife species into an area? __
d. A barrier to the migration or movement of animals? __
e. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? __
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? X
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X
c. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? X
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce or result in light or glare? X
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in:
a. Alteration of the present land use of an area? X
b. Alteration to the future planned land use of an area as described
in a community or general plan? __
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X
b. The depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X
Maybe
N._Ro
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:\STAFFRIrF\68PA95.PC 8/16/95 mf 23
Yes Maybe N._.Q
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances
in the event of an accident or upset conditions (hazardous
substances includes, but is not limited to, pesticicles, chemicals,
oil or radiation)? __ __
b. The use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic
materials (including, but not limited to oil, pestleides, chemicals,
or radiation)7 __ __
c. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan7 __ __
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the human population of an area? __ __
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand
for additional housing? __ __
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including
public transportation? __ __
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods? X
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians? X __
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of
the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:\STAFFILTr\68PA95,PC 8/16/95 axle
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
f. Other governmental services: __ __
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _ _
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy,
or require the development of new sources of energy? __ __
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alterations to any of the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? __ __
b. Communications systems? __ __
c. Water systems? __ __
d. Sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks? __ __
e. Storm water drainage systems? X
f. Solid waste disposal systems? __ _
,, Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of
utility delivery system improvements for any of the above? __ __
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? __ _
b. The exposure of people to potential health hazards, including
the exposure of sensitive receptors (such as hospitals and
schools) to toxic pollutant emissions? __ __
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? __ __
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? _ _
c. Detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area? __ __
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or
quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities? __ __
Yes Maybe
X
N__o
x__
__x
x__
x__
__x
R:/STAFFRPT/68PA95.PC 8/16/95 off 25
20.
Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a, The alteration or destruction of any palgontologic, prehistoric,
archaeological or historic site.'?
b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure, or object?
c. Any potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values?
d. Restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes
Maybe
N~o
X
x_X_
R:\STAFFRPT/68PA95.PC 8/16/95 mf 26
HI. DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Earth
1.a.
Maybe. The proposal may result in unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures.
The site has been previously Faded and is fiat. Potential unstable earth conditions will be
mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils. The landscaping will
serve as erosion control. Construction and grading for this development will not be at depths
which would affect any geologic substructures. No significant impacts are foreseen as a result of
this project.
I.b.
Yes. The proposal will result in the disruption, displacement, compaction, or overcovering of the
soil. All grading activity requires some form of disruption, displacement, compaction and/or
overcovering of the soil. Impacts are not considered significant for two primary reasons First. the
site has previously been graded. Second, the amount of disruption, displacement, compaction and
overcovering of the soil for the realization of this project will be minimal. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
Yes. The proposal will result in a change in the site topography and ground surface relief features.
Although the site has already been modified into its current configuration, additional grading will
be necessary for the project. Since the amount of grading will be the minimum necessary for the
realization of the project, modification to topography and ground surface relief features will not be
considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
1.d.
No. The proposal will not result in the destruction, covering or modification of any unique
geologic or physical features. No unique geologic features or physical features exist on the site.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
1.e.f.
Yes. Development of the site will result in increaied wind and water erosion of soils both on and
off-site during the construction phase of the project. The project proposal will also result in
changes in siltation, deposition or erosion. Erosion control techniques wilt be included as a
condition of approval for the project. In the long-run, harriscape and landscaping will serve as
permanent erosion control for the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
l.g.
No. The proposal will not result in modifications to any wash, channel, creek. river or lake. None
exist on the project site, nor are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
1.h.
Yes. Development of the site will expose people and property to earthquake hazards since the
project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active. In addition, there is
potential for ground failure and liquefaction in this area. Any potential impacts wilt be mitigated
through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. Soil
reports will be required as conditions of approval and will contain recommendations for the
compaction of the soil. Information contained in the City of Temecula General Plan Environmental
Impact Report (certified November 9, 1993) states that the project will not expose people or
property to geelogic hazards such as landslides or mudslides. No known landslides are located on
R:\STAFFRPT\68PA95,PC 8/16/95 mf 27
1.i.
Air
2.a,b.
Water
3.a.
3.b.
3.d.
the site or proximate to the site. The same is true for mudslides. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The proposal does not include development within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as
identified by the State of California, Resource Agency Department of Conservation Special Studies
Zone Map. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Yes. The project will result in air emissions both in the short and long-run. Air emissions and
objectionable odors wBl occur during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be
of short duration and are not considered significant. The project is consistent with the City's
General Plan. Air Quality analysis in the General Plan's Environmental Impact Report shows no
significant impact to air quality at buildout of the City. The analysis was conducted with the
assumption that land uses would be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designations. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The project will not result in alterations of air movement, temperature, or moisture, or in any
change in climate either locally or regionally. The scale of the project precludes it from creating
any significant impacts on the environment in this area.
No. The proposal will not result in changes to currents or to the course or direction of water
movements in either marine or fresh waters. The project site is not located adjacent to either
marine or fresh water sources. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Yes. The proposal will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and
amount of surface runoff. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by
construction of buildings, accompanying harriscape and driveways. While absorption rates and
surface runoff will change, impacts are mitigated through site design. Existing drainage
conveyances safely and adequately handle the existing runoff and any potential runoff which will
be created by this project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The project will not result in the alterations to the course or flow of flood waters. The project
is not located within an identified floodway or dam inundation area. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The proposal will not result in a change in the amount of surface water in any waterbody.
No major waterbodies are located in the subject project area. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
Yes. The proposal will result in discharges into surface waters and alteration of surface water
quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer will be required to
comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an
NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with
R:\STAFFRPT\68pA95.pC 8/16/95 mf 28
the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant.
Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.f,g.
No. The proposal will not result in an altoration of the direction or rate of flow of groundwaters.
Construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground
waters. In addition, the proposal will not result in a change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions, withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.h.
No. The project will not result in the reduction in the mount of water otherwise available for
public water supplies. Water service currently exists at the project site. Additional water service
will be provided by Rancho California Water District (RCWD) upon completion of financial
arrangement~ between RCWD and the property owner (based upon transmittat dated June 20. 1994,
a copy of which is on file with the Planning Department). No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
3.i.
No. The proposal will not expose people or property to water related hazards such as flooding.
Reference response 3.c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Plant Life
4.a-d.
No. The project site has been previously graded. Currently, there are no native species of plants,
no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent
to the site. In addition, this property is not currently used as farm land and is not identified in the
Draft General Plan as an area of agricultural significance. Therefore, there wilt be no significant
impacts as a result of this project.
Animal Life
No. The proposed project is in an area that has been experiencing urbanizafion for a number of
years. The site is currently graded and there is no indication that any wildlife species exists at this
location. The project will not reduce the number of species, provide a barrier to the migration of
animals or deteriorate existing habitat. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo
Rat Habitat Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of
cumulative impacts to the species. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts to animal life
as a result of this project.
Noise
Yes. The proposal will result in increases to existing noise levels. The site is currently vacant and
any development of the land would result in increases to noise levels during construction phases
as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. The project site is located within
proximity to Interstate 15 and is within a Commercial/Industrial corridor. There are no sensitive
receptors located in the area. No significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this project
in either the short or long run.
R:\STAFFRPT\68PA95,PC 8/16/95 mf 29
6.b,c.
Yes. The project may expose people to severe noise levels and vibrations during the
development/construction phase (short run). Construction machinery is capable of producing noise
in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is considered very annoying and can cause hearing
damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This source of noise will be of short duration and therefore
will not be considered significant. The exposure to severe vibrations will be of short duration and
will also not be considered significant.
Litht and Glare
Yes. The proposal will ultimately produce and result in light/glare as all development of this
natore results in new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount
Palomar Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655
(Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
LandUse
Yes. The proposal will alter the present land use of the area, because the site is currently vacant.
When the project is realized on the site the use of the land will be altered. The proposal is
consistent with the City's General Plan land use designation for the site which identifies the site as
Business Park (BP). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
8.b.
No. The proposal will not result in an alteration to the future planned land use of the site as
described in the City's General Plan. Reference response 8.a. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Natural Resources
9.a,b,
Yes. The proposal will result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource and in the
depletion of nonrenewable resource(s). Development of the site will result in an increase in the rate
of use of natural resources (construction materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber)
and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to the scale of the
proposed development. these impacts are not seen as significant.
Risk of Upset
10.a,b.
No. The will not result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the
event of an accident or upset conditions since none are proposed in the request. The same is true
for the use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials. Prior to any on-site
storage, transport, or disposal of any hazardous substances, clearance shall be obtained from the
Riverside County Health Department and the Riverside County Fire Department. The project will
be conditioned to insure that the project complies with all recommendations of these agencies. The
mitigations proposed by these agencies will reduce the potential impacts below a level of
significance. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\fSPA95.PC 8/16/95 mf 30
10.c.
No. The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation
plan. The subject site is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response plan.
The prbject will take access from a maintained street and will therefore not impede any emergency
response or emergency evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
Population
I1.
No. The project will not result in altering the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the
human population of the City of Temecula. Due to the limited scale of the project (employment
of 12-16), it will not result in the relocation of large numbers of people. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
Honsin~,
12.
No. Reference response 11. Projects of this nature do not cause large numbers of people to
relocate; therefore, additional housing needs will not be created. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Transoortation/Circulafion
13.a.
No. The applicant has submitted a letter from a certified Engineer that states that impacts from this
project to adjacent intersections will be less than five percent. Because a traffic analysis was
conducted City-wide under the City's General Plan Environmental Impact Report a focused traffic
analysis is not required for individual projects that have less than a five (5) percent impact on
affected intersections. Mitigation measures will be included in the conditions of approval for the
project, as approved by the Public Works Department. that will mitigate any potential impacts
from the project to a level less than significant: Therefore, no significant impacts are expected
from development of the site.
13.b.
Yes. The project will result in an increased demand for new parking. The project as proposed
includes seventy-three (73) parking spaces on-site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
13.c.
No. The proposal will not create impacts upon existing transportation systems, including public
transportation. The site is located adjacent to a fully improved road (County Center Drive).
Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Route 23 travels along County Center Drive which is where the
project is proposed. A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) will not be required for this
project because of the number of employees (under 100 at one shift). No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
13.d.
Yes. The proposal will result in alterations to present patterns of circulation or movemere of
people and/or goods. The site is currently vacant. People travelling to a site that was previously
vacant will logically alter the presem circulation pattern. As mentioned in response No. 13 .c., the
project is located adjacent to a fully improved road. The area is also developed with industrial and
office uses. Because of these two factors, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
R:/STAFFRPT\68PA95.PC 8/16/95 mf 3]
13.e.
No. The proposal will not result in alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic since none exists
eurren~y in the proximity of the site and none are proposed. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
13 .f.
Yes. The proposal will result in an increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians. The hazards will increase as the project develops due to increased activity on the site.
These impacts are not seen as significant. Impacts have been mitigated to a level less than
significant through the site design, which is consistent with City standards.
Public Services
14.a,b.
No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire
or police protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection;
however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision from these entities.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.c.
No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
school facilities. Reference responses No. 11 and 12. The project will not cause significant
numbers of people to relocate to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in a need for
new or altered school facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.d.
No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
parks or other recreational facilities. Reference responses No. 11, 12, and 14.c. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.e.
Yes. The proposal will result in a need for the maintenance of public facilities, including roads.
Portions of funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which is distributed
to the City of Temecula from the State of California. Impacts to current and future needs for
maintenance of roads as a result of development of the site will be incremental, however, they will
not be considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.f.
No. The proposal will not have a substantial affect upon or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Energy
15.a.
No. The proposal will not result in the use of substantial amounts offuel or energy. As mentioned
in responses 9.a. and 9.b. the proposal may result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural
resource or the depletion of any nonrenewable resource. Development of the site will result in an
increase in the rate of use of natural resources (construction materials, fuels for daily operation,
asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to
the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant.
15.b.
No. The project will not result in a substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy,
nor will the project require the development of new sources of energy. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\68PA95.PC 8/16/95 mf 32
Utilities
16.a
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to power or
natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered adjacent to the site. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
16.b.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to
communication systems (reference response No. 16.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
16.c.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to water
systems. Reference response 3.h. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
16.d.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to sanitary
sewer systems. The project is locamd within Eastern Municipal Water District's (EMWD) sanitary
sewer service area. Based upon information contained in the General Plan Environmental Impact
Report, adequate facilities exist (and are proposed) which will adequately service the project. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
16.e.
Yes. The proposal will result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to on-site storm
water drainage systems. Although the project is considered in-fill, the proposal will need to
provide on-site drainage systems. The drainage system will be required as a condition of approval
for the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
16.f.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste
disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be
mitigated through participation in any Source Reduction and Recycling Programs which are
implemented by the City. No significant impacts. are anticipated as a result of this project.
16.g.
No. The proposal will not result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of utility delivery system
improvements for any of the above. (reference response No. 16.a.). No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Human Health
17.a.b.
No. The proposal will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard.
As discussed in responses 10 a. and 10. b., the proposal will not result in a risk of explosion, or
the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions since none
are proposed in the request. The same is true for the use, storage, transport or disposal of any
hazardous or toxic materials. Prior to any on-site.storage, transport, or disposal of any hazardous
substances, clearance shall be obtained from the Riverside County Health Department and the
Riverside County Fire Department. The project will be conditioned to insure that the project
complies with all recommendations of these agencies. The mitigations proposed by these agencies
will reduce the potential impacts below a level of significance. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\68PA95.PC g/16/95 mf 33
Aesthetics
18.a,b.
No. The proposal will not result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public,
nor in the creation of an aesthetic. ally offensive site open to public view. The project will be
compatible in architectural style and scale with adjacent development. Landscaping and building
articulation will provide buffers to existing view corridors. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
18.c.
No. The proposal will not result in detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area. Reference
response 18.b. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Recreation
19.
No. The proposal will not result in impacts to the quality or quantity of existing recreational
resources or opportunities. Reference responses No. 11 and 12. The project will not cause
significant numbers of people to relocate to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in
impacts to the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Cultural Resources
20.a.
No. The proposal will not result in the alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric,
archaeological or historic site. According to the City's General Plan Environmental Impact Report,
this project is located in an area of low sensitivity for both archaeological and paleontological
resources. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
20.b.
No. The proposal will not result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure or object. Reference response 20.a. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
20.c.
No. The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values. No unique ethnic cultural values exist on-site or in proximity to the site.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
20.d.
No. The proposal will not result in restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area. None currently exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\68PA95.1~2 8/16/95 mf 3~e
IV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNff'ICANCE
Does the project have the potential to either: degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish, wildlife or bird species, cause a fish,
wildlife or bird population to drop below self sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant, bird or anlm~
species, or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Yes Maybe No
X
Does the project have the potential to achieve short
term, to the disadvantage of long term, environmental
goals? (A short term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long term impacts will endure well into the
future.)
X
Does the project have impacts which are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project's
impact on two or more separate resources may be
relatively small, but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment is significant.)
X
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case
because the Mitigation Measures described on the attached sheets and
in the Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project will
mitigate any potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Prepared by:
Signature
Name and Title
Date
R:\STAFFRPT\68PA95.PC 8/16195 mf 36
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFRPT\68PA95,PC 8/16/95 raf ~7
CITY OF TEMECULA
I/
\/I
ICASE NO. - PA95-0068 PLOT PLAN
EXIHRIT- A VICINITY MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 21, 1995
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXItlBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - M-SC (MANUFACTURING SERVICE COMMERCIAL)
RAT
N
EXI-IIRIT C - GENF_.KAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - BP BUSINESS PARK
CASE NO. - P~ PLOT PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 21, 199~
CITY OF TEMECULA
Z GOUNT CIENT1EFI DI~IV~:
.',".v.',v.v
CASE NO. - PA95-0068 PLOT PLAN
EXHIBIT- D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 21, 1995
SITE PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA
r-'i ...... r ..... t-i ...... i r-~i'T~~ r;'----
tn I I t nl I I t nln I I I In I t
SOUTH ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION
CASE NO. - PA95-0068 PLOT PLAN
EXI-IIRIT - E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 21, 1995
ELEVATIONS
ATTACHMENT NO. ~
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:\STAFFRPT\68PA95.PC 8/16/95 mf ~8
.<
Z
z
Z
Z
Dz
Z
.<
Z~,,]
.<
~Z
Z
Z
<
Z
Z
~0
< < <
z ~ ~
~ ~ z
< < <
.<
< < .< < <
< < < < <
ITEM #10
RECOMMENDATION:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 21, 1995
Planning Application No. 95-0048 (Conditional Use Permit)
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration for PA95-0048;
2. APPROVE the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. 95-0048;
3. ADOPT Resolution No. 95- approving PA95-0048, based
upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report;
and
4. APPROVE Planning Application No. 95-0048, subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
Texaco Refining and Marketing
Tait and Associates, Inc.
To construct a 3,363 square foot convenience mart/gas station/drive
through restaurant facility on a 1.4 acre parcel. The application is also
for the concurrent sale of beer and wine for off-site consumption
Northwest corner of Lyndie Lane and Rancho California Road
C-1/C-P (General Commercial)
North: R-34,000 (General Residential, 4.000 square foot minimum lot
size)
South: R-3-4,000 (General Residential, 4,000 square foot minimum lot
size)
East: C-1/C-P (General Commercial)
West: C-1/C-P (General Commercial)
Not requested
CC (Community Commercial)
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Office building
South: Vacant
East: Moraga Plaza/Kindercare
West: Rancho California Town Center
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area: 59,214 square feet
Total Site Area:
Building Area:
Canopy Area:
Landscape Area:
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Building Height:
Canopy Height:
3,363 square feet
5,883 square feet
13,140 square feet
Seventeen (17) spaces
Twenty-five (25) spaces
22'9" to the top of the building, 35 feet to the top of the tower
22'9"
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. 95-0048 was formally submitted to the Planning Department on June 26, 1995.
A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on July 13, 1995. Planning Application No.
95-0048 was deemed complete on July 28, 1995.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is a proposal for a gas station/convenience store and drive-through restaurant. This
combination of uses is the first of its kind in Temecula. The applicant is also requesting approval of
concurrent sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption. The beer and wine will not be sold from
the drive-through. The project proposes a Taco Bell and Subway restaurant inside the building, along
with a convenience market. There will be no interior seating for the restaurants.
ANALYSIS
Site Design
The building is located at the northwest corner of the .parcel. The pump islands and the canopy are
located to the southeast of the building. A drive-through lane proceeds from northeast to southwest and
is adjacent to the building. The perimeter of the site is landscaped. The project site slopes downward
from the southwestern corner toward Lyndie Lane. Drainage will follow the slope of the project. The
project is located on one parcel of a tentative map. Additional paving will be required off-site of the
proposed parcel for the project. This off-site paving will ultimately be included as part of overall
development of the site.
R:XSTAFFRPT/48PA95.PC 8/16/95 ad 2
Architecture
The building will be beige stucco. Trim and frames will be painted brown. Accent tile will be Vermillion
Red. Roofing tile will be two piece mission fie and the colors will be tan, rust and brown. The tower
element will reflect the building and will have black ceramic tile with the Texaco logo placed on the tile.
Area Compatibility
The project is similar in scale to buildings within vicinity of the site. Moraga Plaza is located to the east
of the project and consists of single-story stucco buildings with tile roofs. Kindercare is located north
of Moraga Plaza on Lyndie Lane and is a one-story building. While the project will generate additional
traffic in this area, it is not anticipated to impact Kindercare because the play areas are located to the rear
of the facility. A two-story office building is located to the north of the project. It is also stucco with
a tile roof. The project is compatible with surrounding development in the area.
Circulation/Traffic
According to the traffic analysis dated July 28, 1995, the project will have an insignificant impact (less
than 5 percent) on the intersections of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road, Rancho California Road
and Town Center Drive, Rancho California Road and Moraga Road, and Rancho California Road and
Lyndie Lane. Project access on Rancho California will be restricted to right-in, right-out turning
movements. The applicant is proposing to install a deceleration lane westbound on Rancho California
Road into the project site.
Parkin~
Parking required for the project based upon a gas station, convenience market and restaurant (without
seating) is approximately seventeen (17) parking spaces. There are twenty-five (25) parking spaces
located on site, twelve (12) of which are located adjacent to the building, and thirteen (13) located across
a drive-aisle approximately 90-100 feet from the entrance of the building. The applicant anticipates that
patrons for the restaurant and convenience store will make their purchases when buying gas.
Beer and Wine Licenses
State law regarding the issuance of beer and wine licenses changed effective January 1, 1995. The City
Attorney has informed Staff that all applications for a beer and wine license must go to City Council for
approval, unless the Council delegates this authority. As of the date of this report. the issue of who
approves liquor licenses is still unresolved. Staff is taking a report back to the City Council on August
22, 1995 requesting direction as to who is able to approve beer and wine licenses (i.e. staff, Planning
Commission, City Council).
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Current zoning of the project site is C-1/C-P (General Commercial). Both gas stations and drive-through
restaurants are permitted under Ordinance No. 348 with the approval of a Plot Plan. A conditional use
permit is required for gasoline service stations with concurrent sale of beer and wine for off-premises
consumption. In situations such as this, the more inmnsive application is required. Therefore, a
Conditional Use Permit is the appropriate application. The General Plan Land Use designation for the
site is Community Commercial (CC). It is likely that a conditional use permit will be required for
"alcoholic beverage sales and service" in the CC designation.
R:\STAFFRPTI48PA95.PC 8/16/95 mf 3
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study has been prepared for this
project. The Initial Study determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained
in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the project. These will mitigate any
potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance; therefore Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission adopt a Negative Declaration for the project:
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is a proposal to construct a gas station with a convenience store and concurrent sale of beer
and wine, as well as a drive through restaurant. The landscape plan was reviewed by the City's
Landscape architect and it was determined that the project is consistent with City Landscape Ordinances.
In addition, the project is consistent with the City's General Plan and Ordinance No. 348. Staff is
recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a Mitigated Negative Decimation and approve the
Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project.
FINDINGS
The proposed use conforms to all General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements
of state law and City ordinances. The project is a permitted use within the General Plan Land
Use designation of Community Commercial (CC). In addition, the project is permitted under the
existing General Commercial (C-I/C-P) zoning.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and
general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the
present and future logical development of the surrounding property.
The proposed use or action complies with all other requirements of state law and local
ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Governmental Code Section 65360,
Section 18.29 (Conditional Use Permit) of Ordinance No. 348.
The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the
community. In addition, the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the
environment. The Initial Study prepared for the project determined that although the proposed
project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be
significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of
Approval added to the project.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the
lot configuration, access, and intensity of use, because the proposed planning application
(Conditional Use Permit), as conditioned, complies with the standards contained within the City's
General Plan and Ordinance No. 348.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project is located in an area of
existing and proposed commercial development.
R:XSTAFFRPT\48PA95.PC 8/16/95 mf ~,
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by,
vehicular traffic. Access to the project site is from publicly maintained roads (Lyndie Lane and
Rancho California Road).
The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project.
Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these
applications and herein incorporated by reference.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
Initial Study - Blue Page 21
Exhibits - Blue Page 38
A. Vicinity Map
B, Zoning Map
C. Site Plan
D. Elevations
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 39
R:\STAFFRPT\48PA95.PC 8/16/95 mf 5
ATTACItMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 9S-
R:\STAFFRPT\48PA95.PC 8/16/95 mf 6
RESOLUTION NO. 95-
A RESOLUTION OF TIlE PIANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 9~-0048 TO PERMIT THE OPERATION OF A GAS
STATION, CONVENIENCE STORE V~rrlt THE CONCURRENT
SALE OF BEER AND WINE, AND DRIVE THROUGH
RESTAURANT LOCATED AT TIlE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
RANCHO CAL!I~ORNIA ROAD AND LYNDIE LANE AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. ~21-070-001
WHEREAS, Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc. filed Planning Application No. 95-0048 in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision
Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 95-0048 was processed in the time and manner prescribed
by State and local law;
WItERK~, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. 95-0048, on August
21, 1995, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law. at which time interested persons had an
opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended
approval of Planning Application No. 95-0048;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following
findings:
1. The proposed use conforms to all General Plan requirements and with all
applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. The project is a permitted use within the
General Plan Land Use designation of Community Commercial (CC). In addition, the project is
permitted under the existing General Commercial (C-i/C-P) zoning.
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health. safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with
the present and future logical development of the surrounding property.
3. The proposed use or action complies with all other requirements of state law and
local ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Governmental Code Section 65360, Section
18.29 (Conditional Use Permit) of Ordinance No. 348.
4. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general
welfare of the community. In addition, the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the
environment. The Initial Study prepared for the project determined that although the proposed project
could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due
to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the
project.
5. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, access, and intensity of use, because the proposed planning application
(Conditional Use Permit), as conditioned, complies with the standards contained within the City's General
Plan and Ordinance No. 348.
6. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project is located in
an area of existing and proposed commercial development.
7. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to.
and useable by, vehicular traffic. Access to the project site is from publicly maintained roads (Lyndie
Lane and Rancho California Road).
8. The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not
in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project.
9. Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference.
A. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. 95-0054, as proposed,
is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that
although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval
have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. 95-0048 (Conditional Use Permit) for the operation of a gas station,
convenience store with the concurrent sale of beer and wine. and drive through restaurant located at the
northwest corner of Rancho California Road and Lyndie Lane and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-
070-001, and subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A. attached hereto. and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part
hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of August, 1995.
STEVEN J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY' that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 21st day of August, 1995
by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNHILL
SECRETARY
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\STAFFR~T\~.SPA95.PC 8/16/95 mf 10
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDIT ONS OF APPROVAL
Plaltnin~ Application No. 95-0048, (Conditional Use Permit)
Project Description: The construction of a 3,363 square foot convenience mart/gas
station/drive-through restaurant facility on a 1.4 acre parcel and the concurrent sale of beer
and wine for off-site consumption
Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-310-011
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
Planning Application No. 95-0048 shall not be effective or vest until the City Council finds in
accordance with Business and Professions Code Section 23958.4 that despite a presumption of
undue concentration, the public convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance of a
liquor license at this location. In die event that the City Council delegates the authority to
determine public convenience or necessity under Business and Professions Code Section 23958.4,
this condition shall be satisfied if the party or body to whom authority is delegated makes die
finding of public convenience or necessity.
The use hereby permitted by die approval of Planning Application No. PA95-0048 is for a 3,363
square foot convenience mart/gas station/drive through restaurant facility on a 1.4 acre parcel and
the concurrent sale of beer and wine for off-site consumption.
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any
agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and
all claims, actions, or proceedings against die City, or any agency or instrumentality thereef, or
any of its officers. employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary
damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality diereef,
advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the
City, concerning the Planning Application No. 95-0048 (COnditional Use Permit) which action
is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code,
Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et se__q., including but not by the way of limitations Section
21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or
proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of
the action. Should die City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant
shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any
agency or instrumentality thereof. or any of its officers, employees, or agents.
,
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become
null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this
approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or
the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval.
R:\STAFFRJrB48PA95,PC 8/16/95 mf ] ]
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D, and approved with
Planning Application No. PA95-0048, or as amended by these conditions.
A. Twenty-five (25) parking spaces shall be provided.
B. Two (2) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided.
C. Two (2) Class H bicycle spaces shall be provided.
Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit E, or as amended by these conditions.
Color elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit F, or as amended by these conditions.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit G, (color and material board).
Materials Colors
Stucco (walls)
Trim & Frames
Tile (accent)
Tile (roofing)
Tile (tower signage background)
Ameritune #1M46E "Desert Wind"
Dunn Edwards #Q2-85U "Nougat"
4x4 "Dal-Tile" #DM-1 - Vermillion Red
Craycroft Mission Tile - Tan, Rust, Brown
12x12 "Dal-Tile" #2011 - Black Ceramic Tile
9. Landscape plans shall conform substantially with Exhibit H, or as amended by these conditions.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
10.
11.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate
fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of
a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the
applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation plan as implemented by County
ordinance or resolution.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this. stage of the
development.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
12.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the
Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees.
13.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. The
location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. These plans
shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total
square footage of the landscaped area for the site.
R:\STAFFRPT\48PA95.PC 8/16/95 ear 'l 2
14.
The applicant shall demons~ate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the
development.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
15. An application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director.
16. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
17.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation, and
shading plans.
18.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition
acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease.
or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order.
19.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed
reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the
International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area
and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches
from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height
of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be
posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off~street parking facility, not less than 17
inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license
plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at
owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at
or by telephone
In addition to the above requirements. the surface of each parking place shall have a surface
identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet
in size.
20.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to guarantee the
installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate
maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Planning.
21.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by
this permit.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the
development.
R:/STAFFRPT\48PA95,PC 8/16/95 mf '] 3
BU[I,DING AND SAI~'E'fY DEPARTIVI]E2~VF
23. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building, Plumbing and
Mechanical; 1990 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code Title 24 Energy and
Disabled access regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. (1994 editions due for adoption
by September, 1995).
24. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
25. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
26. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. (California
Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994).
27. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting and fire
alarm systems.
28. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1991
edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
29. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted
for plan review.
30. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be
completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the
conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department of Public Works.
it is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed
easements. traveled ways. improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require
the project to be resubmirted for further review and revision.
General Requirements
31. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise (including all onsite flat work and improvements)
grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any
construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way.
32. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
33. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for
consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site.
34. All plans shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
R:\STAFFRFr~48PA95.PC 8/16/95 mf 14
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
35.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Conlxol Board. No Fading
shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOD has been filed or the project is shown
to be exempt.
36.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written
clearance from the following agencies:
State Water Resources Control Board
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department
Caltrans
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
37.
A Grading Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department
of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, City
Standards, and as additionally required in these Conditions of Approval.
38.
A Soils Report prepared by a registered Soils Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of
Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of
the site. and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement
sections.
39.
A Hydrology Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Department
of Public Works with the initial grading plan check.
40.
An Erosion Control Plan in accordance with City Standards shall be designed by a registered
Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works.
41.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and
erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to
approval by the Department of Public Works.
42.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan
fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to Riverside County.
Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit. If the full Area
Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has been already credited to this property, no new charge
needs to be paid.
43.
The adequacy of the capacity of existing downstream drainage facilities shall be verified. Any
upgrading or upsizing of those facilities, as required, shall be provided as part of development
of this project.
R:/STAFFRPTXASPA95.PC 8/16/95 mf 1 ~5
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
The underlying Tentative Parcel Map 27232 shall be recorded prior to issuance of a grading
permit.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the
Department of Public Works for review.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weedfree condition and shall be either
planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved
by the Department of Public Works.
The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for offsite work
performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works.
Concentrated onsite runoff shall be conveyed in concrete ribbon gutters or underground storm
drain facilities to an adequate outlet as determined by the Department of Public Works.
Letter of approval or a drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners
for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property. A copy of the
drainage easement shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review prior to
recordation. The location of the recorded easement shall be delineated on the precise grading
plan.
The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through
the site. In the event the Department of Public Works permits the use of streets for drainage
purposes, the provisions of Section XI of Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities
exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the Developer
shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the Department of Public Works.
The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the
drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by
constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a
drainage easement.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be recorded by
separate instrument as directed by the Department of Public Works.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental
Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property.
Street improvement plans including medians, parkway trees and street lights prepared by a
registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works shall be required for
all public streets prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit. Final plans and profiles shall show
the location of exiting utility facilities within the right-of-way as directed by the Department of
Public Works.
R:/STAFFP, PT',48PA95.PC 8/16/95 mf '1 {B
55. The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the improvement plans and/or precise
grading plans to be submitted to the Deparunent of Public Works:
56.
57.
58.
59.
Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C.
paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in
accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degree~s or as approved by
the Department of Public Works.
Public Street improvement plans shall include plan profiles showing existing topography
and utilities, and proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent
to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through
undersidewalk drains.
A Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, and approved by the
Department of Public Works. Where construction on existing City streets is required, traffic shall
remain open at all times and the traffic control plan shall provide for adequate detour during
construction.
A Signing and Striping Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by
the Department of Public Works for Rancho California Road and shall be included in the street
improvement plans.
Bus bays will be designed at all existing and proposed bus stops as directed by the Department
of Public Works.
The Developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing
the construction of the following public and private improvements in conformance with applicable
City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter.
medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other
traffic control devices as appropriate
b. Storm drain facilities
c. Landscaping (slopes and parkways)
d. Sewer and domestic water systems
R:\STAFFRPTxASPA95.PC 8/16/95 mf ~ 7
e. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines
f. Erosion control and slope protection
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permit
60. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written
clearance from the following agencies:
· Rancho California Water District
· Eastern Municipal Water District
· General Telephone
· Southern California Edison
· Southern California Gas
· Planning Department
· Department of Public Works
· Riverside County Fire Department
· Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
61. All necessary construction or encroachment permits have been submitted/accomplished to the
satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
62, All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works.
63. All building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and
the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
64, Dedicate an additional 11 foot right-of-way along the project frontage on Lyndie Lane to provide
a 39 foot half width right-of-way, and shall be improved with concrete curb and gutter located
28 feet from centerline and 28 feet of asphalt concrete pavement. or post bonds for the street
improvements, as determined by the Department of Public Works.
65. Dedicate an additional 14 foot right-of-way along the project frontage on Rancho California Road
for a turn lane to provide a 69 foot half width right-of-way and shall be improved with concrete
curb and gutter located 57 feet from centerline. 50 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, 12 foot of
parkway improvements consisting of 6 feet of sidewalk and 6 feet of planter, or post bonds for
the street improvements, as determined by the Department of Public Works.
66. A 14 foot landscaped median with a 200 foot turn pocket shall be constructed along the property
frontage on Rancho California Road.
67. The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established per gross
acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
68. The Developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent property.
69, The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the intent to develop.
R:\STAFFRJrr/48PA95.PC 8/16/95 mf 18
The Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon
the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under
the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the mount in effect
at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district
has not been finaily established by the date on which the Developer requests its building permit
for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of
Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been provided to the Developer. Concurren~y, with
executing this Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public
Facility fee. The amount of the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. The
Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those
now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this
Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this Condition, of this
Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of
any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; provided that the Developer is not
waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
Prior to Issuance of Certification of Occupancy
71.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written
clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Department of Public Works
72.
A "Right Turn Only" sign shall be installed at the westerly driveway that provides access to the
site off Rancho California Road.
73.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards,
including but not limited to curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches,
parkway trees, signing. striping, traffic signal interconnect, and traffic signals as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
74.
In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these conditions, such
easements shall be obtained by the Developer: or, in the event the City is required to condemn
the easement or right-of-way, as provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the Developer shall enter
into an agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the Developer's cost
pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5, which shall be at no cost to the City.
75. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805.
76. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works.
77.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to the
construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the
satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
78.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies
shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
R:\STAFFRPT\48PA9LPC 8/16/95 mf 19
OTHER AGENCIES
79.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Fire
DepartmenUs transmittal dated August 16, 1995, a copy of which is attached.
80.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside
Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated July 5, 1995, a copy of which is
attached.
81.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water
District's transmithal dated July 11, 1995, a copy of which is attached.
82.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal Water
District's transmittals dated July 13, 1995 and August 8, 1995, copies of which are attached.
83.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District's transmittal dated July ,13, 1995, a copy of which is
attached.
84.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside Transit Agency's
transmittal dated July 21, 1995, a copy of which is attached.
85.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the City of Temecula Police
Department's transmittat dated August 1, 1995, a copy of which is attached.
I have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval.
Applicant Name
R:\STAFFRPT/48PA95.PC 8,16/95 mf 20
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
R vERs, .;, FIRE DEPARTMENT
~ J M HARRIS 210 ~ST SAN JAGINTO AVENUE ® PERKIS, C~O~ 92570 · (~9) 657-3183
i C~
August 16, 1995
TO:
~I'I'N:
RE:
PLANNING DEPARTIV[ENT
MATrHE'Wq FAGAN
PA95-0048
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced plot plan, the Fire
Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with
Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards:
The fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of
all commercial building using the procedures established in Ordinance 546. A fire flow of 2500
GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure must be available before any
combustible material is placed on the job site.
The required fire flow shall be available from a super (6"x4"x2-2 1/2") fire hydrant, located not
less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along
vehicular travelways.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water plans to the Fire Department for review.
Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department approval
signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow.
Once the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the
Fire Department for signature.
The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the
appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on the job
site.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit, with the City of Temecula,
the sum of S.25 per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit
a plan check fee of $582.00 to the City of Temecula.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE MEt PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.
Install a hood duct fire extinguishering system. Contact a certified fn'e protection company for
proper placement. Plans must be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation.
All exit doors shall be openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort.
Install panic hardware and exit signs as per chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. Low
level exit signs shall also be provided, where exit signs are requ'tred by section 3314(a).
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a certified
extinguisher company for proper placement.
Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location of fire
hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with fire hydrant.
Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire
Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane
painting and or signs.
Street address shall be posted, in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the street
side of the building with a contrasting background.
Applicant/developer shall be responsible to provide or show there exists conditions set forth by
the Fire Department.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and Safety
Office.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Depamnent
Planning and engineering section (909)694-6439.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department P
Laura Cabral
Fire Safety Specialist
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AITN: Matthew Fagan
FROM Ffl/0 GREGOR DELLENBACH, Environmental Health Specialist IV
RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PA95-0048
DATE: July 5, 1995
5
1. Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Conditional Use Permit No. PA95-0048
and has no objections. PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL, the following are required:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering districts.
b) If there are to be any food establishments, three complete sets of plans for each food
establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule and a
plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail
Food Facilities Law 2,
c)
If there are to be any hazardous materials. a clearance letter from the Department of
Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Management Branch '358-5055) will be
required indicating that the project has been cleared for:
Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.3.
Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.2.
Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.1 ).
Waste reduction management.
GD:dr
(909) 285-8980
cc: Mike Shelter. Hazardous Materials Branch
July 11, 1995
Mr. Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
SUBJECT:
Water Availability
Conditional Use Permit
PA95-0048 Texaco Refin'mg and Marketing, Inc.
APN 921-310-001
Dear Mr. Fagan:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements
between RCWD and the property owner.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
RCWD manages the underground water basins within the District boundaries
and any accidental spills of hazardous material could possibly contaminate
these basins. To protect these basins the District requests that the developer
follow all Environmental Protection Agency guidelines.
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
SB:SD:mc13/F186
cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician
Eastern M..icipa[ Water District
July 13, 1995
RECEIVED
JUL 17
Matthew Fagan, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Depat uxxent
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
DIST,
SUBJECT: Planning Application No 95-0053 (Revised Parcel Map No.
27232)/Platruing Application No. 95-0048
Dear Mr. Fagan:
From the materials transmitted by your office it is our understanding that this map is a
proposal to revise the previously approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 27232 from three
to seven parcels, for a project located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Lyndie
Lane and Rancho California Road.
The subject project is located within the District's sanitary sewer service area. It must be
understood. the available capacities of the District's sanitary sewer system is continually
changing due to the occurrence of development within the District and programs of
systems improvement. As such, the provision of sanitary sewer service will be based on
the timing of the subject project development, the status of the District's permit to
operate, and the serfice agreement between the District and the developer.
Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact this
office at (909) 766-t810, ext. 4467.
Sincerely,
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Warren A. Back
Associate Engineer II
Customer Service Department
AB 93-666
Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinro. California 92581-8300 · Telephone (909) 925-7676 · Fax (90% 929-0257
Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto · Customer Service/Engineering Age_x: ~ E. Oakland Avenue. Hemet, CA
astern Municipaler District
1995
Mr. Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Re:
Planning Application
Declaration, Texaco
California Road
RECEIVED
AUG 1 I 1 95
DIST ,
NO. 95-0048, Amended No. 1, Negative
Facility, L!rndie Lane and Rancho
Dear Mr. Fagan:
The project is considered within the EMWD service area and
tributary to the Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation
Facility.
Based upon a search of our records, it appears that the nearest
gravity sewer facility is an'8-inch diameter sewer located at the
corner of Rancho California Road and Via Las Colinas, and that off-
site sewer improvements will be required to serve the project.
Design for the offsite sewer extension shall be coordinated through
the EMWD's Subdivision Department, attention Mr. Victor Barreto
(909) 766-1860, ext 4439. Fees, Source Control, and agreement
shall be coordinated through the EMWD's Customer Service Department
a~ (909) 766-1810.
Should you have any questions on this matter, please call me at
(909) 766-1810, ext. 4468.
Sincerely,
Eastern Municipal Water District
Keyin L. Crew, P.E.
Senior CusEomer Service Engineer
co: One Stop Program
Mail To: Post Office Box 8500 · San Jacinm, California 92581-8300 · Telephone (909) 925-7676 · Fax (909) 929-0257
Main Office: 2~5 S. San jacinto Avenue, San J~.cinto · Customer Serv:ce,,Engineering Annex: qqO E. Oakland Avenue, Hemet, CA
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Z~TY OF- T~Cc'~r~ ..... : ....
~ne~ N~TT ~6~N
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Dis'G, ict does not norm=qy recommend O::}ndffions for land ffNtadons ot other land m cases In incc~pormed ctti~. Thl Dil'~ct also does not
plan ched( ct1'/land use cases, ix provide State Dirtdoe of Real Estate letlira or offier flood hazwd repofi. t fix such cases. District
commenLsJrecommendatto~.s fix suoh cases are normadly limited to items of spedtic interest to the District Including Diatfict Master Drainage Ran
radiities, oth~ regional flood cof't~ol end dralnege facilities which could be cix~defed a Iogici comporlertt or exteev~on Of a fitliter pian syslem,
and Dis'G'ict Area Drainage Plan fees (development nl'tigation fees). In ll:~lffiors, Infixml~on Of a generad II~ure Is pfovid~cL
The District has not reviewed the prof}osed project In detail and the following checked ~ do not in any way constitute or imply District
a,oprovai or endorsement Of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, bubiic heailh 8h¢1 ss~et'/ix any other mJch issue:
~ This project w~uid not be irapeeled by District Msatar Drainage Ran fadlilies not are other flK:tl~es of regionad interest proposed.
'}This project invdvas District Me.slar Ran fadl~es. The Dis'~ct will ~ ownership of mJch fscilitjes on w~'ton request Of the City. Fadlitjes
must be consmjcTad to District standards, and District plan chec~ and lrtr4:xK~on will be required fix District acce~ance. Ran ched%
inspection and administrative fees will be required.
[""'~This project proposes Channels, Storm drains 3~ inches ot larger in diameter, or ofhet radiities mat could be o:t~dered regional in nature
' an:i/cr e logiced exler~on of the edopted Master Drainage Ran. The District would o:m.~der
ownership of suc~ facilities o~ wr~en requeSt Of the CIty. Facilities must be constructed to District Standards. and District i~an chec~ and
ir~ion will be required fix Dist~ct acceptance. Ran Check. tnspecljon and 8,~mihisltmive fees will be required.
~/This projet1 is located w~thin the lirnlls of the District's r11 ~ ~ ~ } ~' '~ r~t C ~.. ~ E ~ Area Drainage Ran fix whiCh drainage
fees have been adopted; applica~4e fees should be paid to the Rood Control Disthct ix ~ prior to final Ipprovai of the project. or in the
of a parcel map or subdivision pnix to issuance Of building ix grading ~. Fees to be paid should be al t~e rate in effect st the ~me of
issuance of the actual permit.
GENERAl INFORMATION
This project may require a National Po41utant Discharge Elirnjna/ac~ Systom (NPDES) pern~t horn 1tin Stme Water Resources Control Board.
Clearance for grading, recorderion, or othe' final approval, should not be given un~l the ~ has determined ~tat the projec~ has been granted a
If this projec~ invo4ves e FederaJ Emergency Manegeme~t Agency (FEMA) mapped flood ptain, the~ the ~ sho~dd require the applicant to
pro'.qde all studies, caiculmions. p4ans end other Inforrnmion required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant
obtain · Conditional Letler of Map Revision (CLOM R) prior to grading, recixciation or nthe~ fin,,: adprovai Of the project. and · Latler of Map
Revision (LOMR) priOr to oo:upancy.
If · naturaJ watercourse Or madpeal flood plain is impL-'led by this project the City should require the adpiicarft to obtain a Sec~on 160111603
Agreement from the CaJifornia Department Of Rsh and Game m'N:j a Clean Wme~ ACT Sec:~on 4G4 permit from 1he U.S. Army Co,~s of
Engineers, Or w~fien conespondence from these aeenoes indicatjng ~ proieof is exempt from these requirements. A C~ean Water ACt Sectjon
401 Water Q'Jaiity C,,wlj~cation may be required from the Ioc~ Caiifornja Regionai Water QuaiT/Bom'd prior to Llauance Of ms
404 permit. ~
~AMS
SeniOr Civil Engineer
c: Date: ':7--/~'-
July 21, 1995
Matthew Fagan
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
............
Riverside Transit Agency
1825 Third Street
P.O. Box 59968
Riverside, CA 92517
Phone: (909) 684-0850
Fax: (909) 684-1007
RE:
TPM 27232:
CUP 95-0048
Location:
Applicant:
7-Lot Commercial Parcel Map on 5.6 ac.
Development of Gas Station/Mini Mart on 1.4 ac.
NWC Lyndie Lane and Rancho California Road
Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this application. We have no comments related
to the current proposal. The site is located on RTA Route 23 (A and B), which provides
local transit service in Temecula and a connection to Murrieta.
The applicant is welcome to contact RTA for more information on existing and planned
transit service in the area.
Sincerely,
Cis LeRoy
Planning Manager
RU~ ~ '~ I8:~c~qM S~ ~F~_,iFF STATIO~
Cilty of Temecula
Temecu a Police Department
To: Matt Fagan Date: August I, 1995
Fr: Pep. Sanchez
Re: Conditions of Approval - Texaco Facility on Lyndle Lane
The following conditions of approval are for the above referenced application:
Maximum amount of lighting allowable per Mr. Polomar restrictlone in parking
area of this facility and around the building perimeter will be required.
2) Low density landscaping (shrubbery} in parking area and around the building,
specifically window areo's will be required.
3)
The applicant will not use any glazing material or piece any object that obstructS
the view of the interior of the building from the street or parking lot on the
windows.
4) The applicant must provide the police department with a 24-hour emergency
phone number.
5) The applicant will provide the police department with a ~agram of the interior of
the building. (If changes are made that differ from ~e original blue print)
6)
The applicant will provide the police department with the name, address, and
phone number of their securi~ department/company and their cleaning
company.
?) It is also recommended that the applicant install a security alarm in the facility.
9)
If multiple and/or constant problems arise at the establishment which adversely
impac~ the Police Department, the Police Department can at the discretion of
the Police Chief, assign officera to work at the establishment. The number of
officers assigned and the hours and days worked is aiso at the discretion of the
Police Chief. Any officers so assigned will he at the cuRant extra duty rate of
pay and will be paid for by the owner of the establishment.
The above recommendations by the Police Department are to help minimize
/3otential criminal problems.
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INH'IAL ENVIRON~iENTAL STUDY
R:\STAFFI~PT\48PA95PC 8/16/95 mf 2~
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Initial Environmental Study
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
II.
1. Name of Project:
2. Case Numbers:
3. Location of Project:
4. Description of Project:
5. Date of Environmental
Assessment:
6. Name of Proponent:
7. Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
Texaco
Planning Application No. 95-0048 (Conditional Use Permit - Texaco)
Northwest corner of Rancho California Road and Lyndie Lane
A proposal to construct a 3,363 square foot convenience man/gas
station/drive through restaurant facility on a 1.4 acre parcel. The
application is also for the concurrent sale of beer and wine for off-
site consumption.
July 31, 1995
Texaco Refining and Marketing
10 Universal City Plaza, 10th Floor, Universal City, CA 91608,
(818) 505-2832
ENVIRONI~IENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations to all the answers are provided in Section III)
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or over covering
of the soil?
Change in topography or ground surface relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique
geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils. either on
or off the site?
f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion?
g. The modification of any wash, channel, creek, river or lake?
Yes Maybe N._q
X
__x _ _
__x _ _
__x _ _
__x _ _
_ _ __x
R:/STAFFRPT\48PA95,PC 8716/95 mf 22
h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as
earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, liquefaction, ground
failure, or similar hazards?
i. Any development within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, temperature, or moisture or any
change in climate, whether locally or regionally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns. or the rate and
amount of surface runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface water in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface
water quality. including but not limited to, temperature.
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters. either through direct
additions, withdrawals. or through interception of an aquifer
by cuts or excavations?
h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such
as flooding?
4, Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species. or number of any native
species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and
aquatic plants)?
Yes Maybe
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:\STAFFRPT\48PA95.PC 8/16/95 mf 23
Yes Maybe N__o
Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or
endangered species of plants?
Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
d. Reduction in the acreage of any agricultural crop?
__x
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a,
Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of
animals (animals includes all land animals, birds, reptiles, fish,
amphibians, shellfish, benthie organism, and/or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or
endangered species of animals?
_ X
c. The introduction of new wildlife species into an area?
d. A barrier to the migration or movement of animals?
e. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
X
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
X
X
Exposure of people to severe vibrations?
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce or result in light or glare?
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in:
a. Alteration of the present land use of an area?
X
Alteration to the future planned land use of an area as described
in a community or general plan?
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
b. The depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource?
R:/STAFFIUirF/48PA95PC 8/16/95 mf 24
Yes Maybe N__o
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances
in the event of an accident or upset conditions (hazardous
substances includes, but is not limited to, pesticides, chemicals,
oil or radiation)'?. __
b. The use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic
materials (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals,
or radiation)? __
c. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan? __
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the human population of an area? __
12. Homing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand
for additional housing? __
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? __
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems. including
public transportation? __
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods? X
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? _
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians? X
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of
the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
X
X
_
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
_ x__
X
R:\STAFFRPT\48PA95.PC 8;16/95 mf 25
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
f. Other governmental services:
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy,
or require the development of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alterations to any of the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water systems?
d. Sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage systems?
f. Solid waste disposal systems?
g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of
utility delivery. system improvements for any of the above?
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard?
b. The exposure of people to potential health hazards, including
the exposure of sensitive receptors (such as hospitals and
schools) to toxic pollutant emissions?
18, Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public?
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view?
c. Detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area?
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or
quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities?
Yes Maybe
X
N__o
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:\STAFFRPT,48PA95.1~C 8/16195 mf 26
Yes Maybe N__9_o
20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
The alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric,
archaeological or historic site?
X
Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure, or object?
X
Any potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values?
X
Restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
R:/STAFFRPT48PA95.PC 8/16/95 mf 27
HI. DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Earth
1.a.
Maybe. The proposal may result in unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures.
The site has been previously graded. Potential unstable earth conditions will be mitigated through
the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils. The landscaping will serve as erosion
control. Construction and grading for current and future development will not be at depths which
would affect any geologic substructures. No impacts are foreseen as a result of this project.
1.b.
Yes. The proposal will result in disruptions, displacements, compactions. and/or overcovering of
the soil. All grading activity requires some form of disruption, displacement, compaction and/or
overcovering of the soil. Impacts are not considered significant for two primary reasons First. the
site has previously been graded. Second, the amount of disruption, displacement, compaction and
overcovering of the soil for the realization of this project and future projects will be minimal. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Yes. The project will result in a change in the site topography and ground surface relief features.
Although the site has already been modified into its current configuration, additional grading will
be necessary for the realization of this project and future projects. Since the amount of grading will
be the minimum necessary for the realization of the project, modification to topography and ground
surface relief features will not be considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
1.d.
No. The project will not result in the destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic
or physical features. No unique geologic features or physical features exist on the site. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
1.e.f.
Yes. The project will result in increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-site
during the construction phase of the project. All projects will result in changes in siltation,
deposition or erosion. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition of approval for
the project. In the long-run, harriscape and landscaping will serve as permanent erosion control
for the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
1.g.
No. The project will not result in modifications to any wash, channel, creek. river or lake. None
exist on the project site, nor are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
1.h.
Yes. Any development of the site will expose people and propert}, to earthquake hazards since the
project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active. Any potential impacts
will be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code
standards. Soil reports will be required as conditions of appruval and will contain recommendations
for the compaction of the soil. Information contained in the City of Temecula General Plan
Environmental Impact Report (certified November 9. 1993) states that the project will not expose
people or property to geologic hazards such as landslides or mudslides. No known landslides are
located on the site or proximate to the site. The same is true for mudslides. There is no potential
for ground failure and liquefaction in this area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\48PA95,PC 8/16/95 mf 28
1.i.
Ai__[
2.a,b.
Water
3.b.
3.d.
No. The project area is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as identified by the State
of Califoruia, Resource Agency Department of Conservation Special Studies Zone Map. Therefore,
no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Yes. The project will result in potential air emissions both in the short and long-run. Air
emissions and objectionable odors will occur during the construction phase of the project. Impacts
will be of short duration and are not considered significant. The current project is consistent with
the City's General Plan. Air Quality analysis in the General Plan's Environmental Impact Report
shows no significant impact to air quality at buildout of the City. The analysis was conducted with
the assumption that land uses would be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designations.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The project will not contribute to alterations of air movement, temperature, or moistere, or
in any change in climate either locally or regionally. The scale of the project precludes it from
creating any significant impacts on the environment in this area.
No. The project will not result in changes to currents, to the course or direction of water
movements in either marine or flesh waters. The project site is not located adjacent to either
marine or flesh water sources. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Yes. The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and
amount of surface runoff. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by
construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and
surface runoff will change, impacts are mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyance will
be required for the project to safely and adequately handle the runoff which will be created. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The project will not result in the alterations to the course or flow of flood waters. The project
site is not located within identified floodway or dam inundation areas. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The project will not result in a change in the amount of surface water in any waterbody. No
major waterbodies are located in me subject project area. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
Maybe. The project may result in discharges into surface waters and alteration of surface water
quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer will be required to
comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an
NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with
the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant.
Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:'/STAFFRPT\48PA95.PC 8/16/95 mf 29
3.f,g.
No. The project will not result in an alteration of the direction or rate of flow of groundwaters.
Construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground
waters. In addition, no changes will occur in the quantity of Found waters, either through direct
additions, withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.h.
No. The project will not result in the reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for
public water supplies. Water service currently exists at the project site. Additional water service
will need to be provided by Rancho California Water District (RCWD). This is typically provided
upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. The same
would apply to future development projects at the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
3.i.
No. The project will not expose people or property to water related hazards such as flooding.
Reference response 3.c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Plant Life
4.a-d.
No. The project will not result in a change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any native
species of plants, in the reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered
species of plants, in the introduction of new species of plants into the area of native vegetation, in
a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species, or in the reduction in the acreage of any
agricultural crop. The project site has been previously graded. Currently, there are no native
species of plants. no unique, rare. threatened or endangered species of plants. or native vegetation
on the site. In addition. this property is not currently used as farm land and is not identified in the
Draft General Plan as an area of agricultural significance. Therefore. there will be no significant
impacts as a result of this project.
Animal Life
No. The project will not result in a change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species
of animals. in the reduction of the numbers of any unique. rare, threatened, or endangered species
of animals. in the introduction of new wildlife species into the area. in a barrier to the migration
or movement of animals or in the deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat. The proposed
project is in an area that has been experiencing urbanization for a number of years. The site is
currently graded and there is no indication that any wildlife species exists at this location. The
project will not reduce the number of species. provide a barrier to the migration of animals or
deteriorate existing habitat. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat
Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts
to the species. Therefore. there will be no significant impacts to animal life as a result of this
project.
R:~STAFFRlrB48PA95.PC 8/16795 mf 30
Noise
Yes. The project will result in increases to existing noise levels. The site is currently vacant and
any development of the land will result in increases to noise levels during construction phases as
well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. It is not anticipated that noise generated
by development of the site will generate significant amounts of noise. The project site is located
at the intersection of Rancho California Road and Lyndie Lane. Further, Rancho California Road
in this area is a commercial corridor. No significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project in either the short or long run.
6.b,c.
Maybe. The project may expose people to severe noise levels and vibrations during the
construction phase (short run) for each development on the site. Construction machinery is capable
of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is considered very annoying and
can cause hearing damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This source of noise will be of short
duration and therefore will not be considered significant. The exposure to severe vibrations will
be of short duration and will also not be considered significant.
Light and Glare
Yes, The project will ultimately produce and result in light/glare. All development of this nature
result in new Iight sources. Projects within the City of Temecula have the potential to impact the
Mount Palomar Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No.
655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
Land Use
8.a.
Yes, The project will alter the present land use of the area, because the site is currently vacant.
The current proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan land use designation for the site
which identifies the site as (CC) Community Commercial. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
8.b.
No. The proposal will not result in an alteration to the future planned land use of the site as
described in the City's General Plan. Reference response 8.a. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Natural Resources
9.a.b.
Yes. The project will result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource and in the
depletion of nonrenewable resource(s L Development of the site will result in an increase in the rate
of use of natural resources (construction materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber)
and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to the scale of the
proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant.
R:/STAFFRPT~48PA95.PC 8/16/95 mf 31
Risk of Upset
10.a,b.
Maybe. The current proposal and subsequent development of the site may result in a risk of
explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident. The project is
a proposal for a gas station. Gas is a flammable liquid. The potential for accidents are similar for
all gas stations. The project will have to comply will all local, state and federal regulations as it
pertains to safety. The same is true for the use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or
toxic materials. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
10.c.
No. The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation
plan. The subject site is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response plan.
The site will take access from two (2) publically maintained streets and will therefore not impede
any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
Population
11.
Maybe. The project may result in altering the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the
human population of the area because it will be creating jobs within the City of Temecnia. The
creation of new jobs has the potential to cause people to relocate to an area close to their
employment. Due to the limited scale of the project. it will not result in the relocation of large
numbers of people. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Housing
12.
No. Reference response 11. Projects of this nature do not cause large numbers of people to
relocate; therefore, additional housing needs will not be created. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Transportation/Circulation
13.a.
No. The project will not result in the generation of substantial additional vehicular movement.
According to page 3 of the Traffic Analysis prepared for the project (dated May 3, 1995), the
project will have an insignificant impact (less than five percent) to intersections affected by the
project. Mitigation measures will be included in the conditions of approval for the project, as
approved by the Public Works Department. that will mitigate any impacts from the project to a
level less than significant. Therefore. no significant impacts are expected from development of the
site.
13.b.
Yes. The project will result in an increased demand for new parking. Twenty-five (25) parking
spaces are proposed for the Texaco. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
13.c.
No. The project will not create impacts upon existing transportation systems, including public
transportatiom The site is located adjacent to a fully improved Arterial Highway (P-ancho
California Road). Further, the project includes a deceleration lane into the project. Riverside
Transit Agency (RTA) Route 23 travels on Rancho California Road, in front of the project site.
A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) will not be required for this project and is unlikely
R:\STAF]FRPT\48PA95.pC 8/16/95 mf 32
to be required for future development at the site. TDM is based upon the number of employees
per shift and is not required if there under 100 at one shift. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
13.d.
Yes. The project will result in alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people
and/or goods. The site is currently vacant. People will be travelling to a site that was previously
vacant. This will logically alter the present circulation pattern. As mentioned in response No.
13.c., the project is located adjacent to a fully improved Arterial Highway. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.e.
No. The project will not result in alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic since none exists
currently in the proximity of the site and none are proposed. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
13.f.
Yes. The project will result in an increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians. The hazards will increase as the project develops due to increased activity on the site.
These impacts are not seen as significant. Impacts have been mitigated to a level less than
significant through the site design, which is consistent with City standards.
Public Services
14.a.b.
No. The proposal wilt not have a substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire
or police protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection;
however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision from these entities.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.c.
No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
school facilities. Reference responses No. 11 and 12. The project will not cause significant
numbers of people to relocate to the City of Teniecula and therefore will not result in a need for
new or altered school facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.d.
No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
parks or other recreational facilities. Reference responses No. 11.12, and 14.c. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.e.
Yes. The proposal will result in a need for the maintenance of public facilities, including roads.
Portions of funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax Which is distributed
to the City of Temecula from the State of California. Impacts to current and future needs for
maintenance of roads as a result of development of the site Will be incremental, however, they will
not be considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.f.
No. The proposal will not have a substantial affect upon or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\48PA95,PC 8/16/95 mf 33
Ener2v
l~.a.
15.b.
Utilities
16.a
16.b.
16.c.
16.d.
16.e.
16.g.
No. The proposal will not result in the use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy. As mentioned
in responses 9.a. and 9.b. the proposal may result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural
resource or the depletion of any nonrenewable resource. Development of the site will result in an
increase in the rate of use of natural resources (construction materials, fuels for dally operation,
asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to
the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant.
No. The project will not result in a substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy,
nor will the project require the development of new sources of energy. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to power or
natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered adjacent to the site. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to
communication systems (reference response No. 16.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to water
systems. Reference response 3.h. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to sanitary
sewer systems. The project is located within Eastern Municipal Water District's CEMWD) sanitary
sewer service area. Based upon information contained in the General Plan Environmental Impact
Report. adequate facilities exist (and are proposed) which will adequately service the project. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Yes. The proposal will result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to on-site storm
water drainage systems. Although the project is considered in-fill, the proposal will need to
provide on-site drainage systems. The drainage system will be required as a condition of approval
for the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste
disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be
mitigated through participation in any Source Reduction and Recycling Programs which are
implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The proposal will not result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of utility delivery system
improvements for any of the above. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
R:\STAFFRPT/48PA95.PC 8/16/95 mf 34
Human Health
17.a.b.
No. The proposal will not result in the creation of any health heard or potential health hazard.
The County of Riverside Health Services Agency has reviewed the project and its recommendations
shall be included as conditions of approval for the project (as per County of Riverside Health
Services Agency transmithal dated June 10, 1994 a copy of which is on file with the Planning
Department). In addition, the proposal will not expose people to potential health hazards. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Aesthetics
18.a,b.
No. The proposal will not result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public,
nor in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. The project will be
compatible in architectural style and scale with adjacent development and is typical of development
in Temecula and Southern California. Landscaping and building articulation will provide buffers
to existing view corridors. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
18.c.
No. The proposal will not result in detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area. Reference
response 18.b. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Recreation
19.
No. The proposal will not result in impacts to the quality or quantity of existing recreational
resources or opportunities. Reference responses No. 11 and 12. The project will not cause
significant numbers of people to relocate to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in
impacts to the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Cultural Resources
20.a.
No. The proposal will not result in the alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric,
archaeological or historic site. According to the City's General Plan Environmental Impact Report,
this project is located in an area of low sensitivity for both archaeological and paleontological
resources. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
20.b.
No. The proposal will not result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building. structure or object. Reference response 20.a. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
20.c.
No. The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values. No unique ethnic cultural values exist on-site or in proximity to the site.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
20.d.
No. The proposal will not result in restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area. None currently exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
R:'STAFFRPT',48PA95.PC 8/16/95 mf 35
IV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIIqCANCE
Does the project have the potential to either: degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish, wildlife or bird species, cause a fish,
wildlife or bird population to drop below self sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant, bird or animal
species, or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential to achieve short
term, to the disadvantage of long term. environmental
goals? (A short term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long term impacts will endure well into the
future.)
Does the project have impacts which are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project's
impact on two or more separate resources may be
relatively small, but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment is significant.)
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Yes Maybe N_q
X
R:/STAFFRPT\41lPA95.PC 8/16/95 mf 36
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case
because the Mitigation Measures described on the attached sheets and
in the Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project will
mitigate any potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION wilt be prepared.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Prepaxed by:
Signature
Name and Title
Date
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
EXItIBITS
R:/STAFFRPT/48PA95,PC 8/16/95 mf 38
CITY OF TEMECULA
~ood
CASE NO. - PA95-0048 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
EXHIBIT- A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 21, 1995
VICINITY MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
t
EX3-HBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - C-1/C-P (GENERAL COMMERCIAL)
i~' <" Dr- I
./'
> ~t :'~ ~ I' cc
> BP i )H~
.-,j
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - CC CONINIUNITY COMMERCIAL
CASE NO. - PA95-0048 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PLANNING COM~IISSION DATE - AUGUST 21, 1995
CITY OF TEMECULA
.... ~z-;ZZ~Z--UZZZZZZ
CASE NO. - PA95-0048 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
EXHIBIT- D
]l PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 21, 1995
SITE PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA95-0048 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
EXHIBIT - E
PLANNING COI~EMISSION DATE - AUGUST 21. 1995
ELEVATIONS
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA95-0048 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
EXHIBIT - E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 21. 1995
ELEVATIONS
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA95-0048 CONDITIONAL USE PERlXlIT
EXHIBIT - E
PLANNING COl~BIISSION DATE - AUGUST 21, 1995
ELEVATIONS
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA95-0048 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
EXHIBIT - H
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 21, 1995
LANDSCAPE PLANS
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:I. STAFFRPTI48PA95.PC 8/16t95 mf 39
Z
~-=z
Z
~Z
Z
~Z
Z~
DZ
< <
<
Z~
.<
~ z ~
< <
Z
< .< < __< <: <
_< < < < <
ITEM #11
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director
August 21, 1995
Draft Development Code
Prepared by:
John Meyer, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the draft
Development Code, take public testimony, and direct staff to
make any modifications in order to make a recommendation of
approval to the City Council.
INTRODUCTION
On March 20, 1995, the Planning Commission began the Public Hearing Process for the
Temecula Development Code. The Development Code is the primary instrument for
implementing the General Plan. Temecula's General Plan is a 20-year plan, while the
Development Code and the Zoning Map respond to shorter-term needs and conditions. Each
of the residential, commercial, business park, and other land use designations are detailed by
land use zones which specify permitted uses, conditional uses, and development standards
for each zone.
BACKGROUND
At the July 17, 1995 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed and
commented on the Consistency Zoning and City sponsored General Plan Amendment which
were then continued to the August 21, 1995 meeting. Upon finishing the review of the map
and amendments, the Commission will review the Revisions Addendum.
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT AND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
The public hearing for the General Plan Amendment was noticed for both July 17, 1995 and
August 21, 1995 to provide for ample public testimony. During the last meeting, the
Commission heard four additional General Plan Amendment requests. They are numbered 12
through 15 on the attached GPA Parcel Specific Land Use Request Matrix. The matrix
includes staff's recommendation and justification. Support exhibits are attached behind the
matrix. Included, is an exhibit showing the areas that will be designated L-2 on the Zoning
Map. These areas where identified as parcels that are already under the 40,000 sq. ft.
minimum lot size of the L-1 zoning district.
An EMWD owned parcel was also noticed for a General Plan amendment. The parcel is
adjacent to the existing treatment facility. Because of a potential real estate transaction,
EMWD does not want this parcel amended at this time.
Staff has received a request to modify Land Use Designations and the Specific Plan Overlay
designation on portions of the Winchester Hills Specific Plan. A letter from the new property
owner is attached. Staff will provide additional input at the meeting.
REVISIONS ADDENDUM
Because of budgetary considerations, staff will not be able to provide the Commission a
complete updated draft of the Code. The attached Revisions Addendum consists of changes
requested by the Commission during its review of the Draft Development Code dated March
9, 1995. The additions/revisions to the section are shown in B~i~ and the deletions are
shown with a ~tr!F~ c' 't. Page numbers reference where the modified text is located in each
section.
Staff has not been able to address all the issues previously identified. Those issues staff is
still researching include:
* Vehicle related issues as they relate to Home Occupations, Residential and
Parking Standards
* Consistency of CUP findings
* Acacia Properties
* Definition of Terms
These items will be brought back at Commission's next Development Code hearing.
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS
In addition to the Revisions Addendure, staff has attached the City Attorney Comment Letter,
which also responds to questions previously raised by the Planning Commission.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
GPA Parcel Specific Land Use Request Matrix - Blue Page 3
Letters of Request - Blue Page 4
Revisions Addendum - Blue Page 5
City Attorney Comment Letter - Blue Page 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
GPA PARCEL SPECIFIC LAND USE REQUEST MATRIX
R:\DEVCODE'iI)RAFTI)CFC7 8/17/95 vg~' 3
Z
Z
~/
o~
~\
II
11
II
II
II
II
I1
II
'/
\\
/!
\\
\/
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
LETTERS OF REQUEST
R:\DEVCODE\DRAFTDC.PC7 8/17/95 vgw 4
I
II~rl~I~EffiErff
I
Kemper Real Estate Management Company
27555 Ynez Road. Suite 202, Temecula, California 92591 · 909/676-564I · Fax: 909/694-0749
August 3, 1995
Mr. John R. Meyer, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Re: CONSISTENCY REZONTNG COMMENTS
Dear John:
As a follow up to the Planning Commission hearing of July 17, 1995, this letter shall reiterate
Kemper's position on the proposed consistency rezoning of those certain properties described
herein. Exhibits of each property are attached for reference.
1. Rancho California Business Park. Parcels 13 of phase I, and 2 of phase II
Current Zoning: MSC
Consistency: BP Requested: LI
This park contains 24 parcels averaging 5 acres each and is occupied by a combination of
office and manufacturing users restricted by CC&Rs. Under the proposed consistency
zoning, all interior parcels are designated 1I with the exception of parcels 2 and 13. We
hereby request these two parcels be zoned consistently with all interior parcels to LI.
North Jefferson Business Park. Phase 3
Current Zoning: MSC
Consistency: BP
Requested: SC along Jefferson
LI remainder
This property has an approved tentative map which contains a mixture of small parcels
averaging 1.5 acres, to larger parcels averaging 6-,- acres along Murrieta Creek. Proposed
consistency zoning along Jefferson is HT on both sides of the street up to the channel, and
SC across the street from the property. Therefore, our request for SC zoning for parcels
fronting Jefferson xvould be consistent with the Jefferson Street zoning. Further, an LI
designation for the remaining parcels would allow for the uses under BP as well as manu-
facturing on the larger parcels along Murrieta Creek as originally planned. (An alternative
zoning to consider is a higher density residential for the West side of the freeway.)
Consistency Zoning
Page 2
Escarpment
Consistency Zoning: BP East of Bypass
OSC West of Bypass
Requested: BP both sides of
Bypass frontage
This property map was never ~naled pending final design of the Western Bypass,
however, the development study indicating planned use is enclosed. Zoning BP on both
sides of the Bypass allows Kemper to fully utilize the Western Bypass and is consistent
with other properties. City plans for open space for public use should include plans for
acquisition of property.
4. Rainbow Canyon
Consistency Zoning: PO/HT Requested: NC or HT
Kernper proposes that its property East of the ultimate Pala Road alignment to Jedediah
Smith Road be zoned NC or HT in its entirety. The land in this area suitable for
development is not sufficient in size to accomodate more than one usage, which should be
either NC or HT.
5. Rancho California Corporate Park. Parcel 4
Current Zoning: IP Consistency: SP Requested: LI
Parcel 4 of PM 19677 should be zoned consistently with the adjacent developed parcels of
this map and CC&Rs. All four parcels of this property are in AD 156 which pays for
those improvements for commercial use.
In addition to the above, we would like to confirm our understanding of the proposed zoning of
the following properties:
A. Margarita Canvon
HT along 1-15 frontage, OSC along Murrieta Creek, and HR West of the creek.
B. Meadows Business Park
BP comer ofNichols/Vqinchester Rds, and CC comer ofN{argafita3Aqnchester Rds.
Consistency Zoning
Page 3
I
I
Zoning is key to attracting business to buy and develop commercial properties in Temecuta.
Working together to understand each other's needs is critical in accomplishing the goals of both
Kemper and the City. Your understanding of this complex issue is greatly appreciated. If you
require further documentation for the upcoming Planning Commission hearing, please feel free to
contact me or Darice Roesner.
Sincerely,
FEElvIPER REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT COMPANY
Enclosures
cc: Darice Roesner
2
NORTH
dEFFERSON BUSINESS PARK
BF.~FORO pROPERTIES
Temecula, California
3TAT~,Gle
,<
Z
0
Z
0
0
i
Z
'~A Z)
MEADOWS BUSINESS PARK
l' ""51 Availabie
August 4, 1994
Planning Commission
Temecula Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: SE CORNER PALA ROAD & 79 SOUTH
RECEIVED
;*! 0 7 1995
Dear Commissioners:
This letter is to inform you of several reasons why this site should not be
rezoned from Professional Office (0) to Highway Tourist Commercial (HT).
1. The site is not near enough to Interstate 15 to justify this
change.
The site is just adjacent to the California Sunset housing tract
and would increase traffic that already cuts through the tract to
avoid traffic at the intersection of 79 South and Pala Road.
The Pala Road Bridge, which is scheduled for increased lanes, will
already increase traffic through the area and make it even more
difficult to make turns from Cupeno Lane onto Pala Road. Zf the
site was a commercial site, the problem would be increased.
Residents of the California Sunset tract purposely bought the
houses with the knowledge that there would not be retail commercial
business on that site keeping the area more residential. Homes in
the tract have already lost value due to the proposed widening of
both Highway 79 South and Pala Road. A change in the land use
designation would increase traffic and lower property values
further. A "Highway-Tourist-Commercial" area would not be
conducive to the continuation of both a rural and residential life
style that the residents purposely sought.
Please consider residents quality of life and maintain the current land use
designation as Professional Office (0) or have no construction at all at the
~ntersection.Thank you for your time and consideration,
Most sincerely,
(
Terry A, Chapman
30097 Pechanga Drive
Temecula CA 92592
(California Sunset Tract)
Phone: 909-699-3279
THE STEPHEN A. BIERI COMPANY, INC.
August 8, 1995
AUG 14
Mr. John R. Meyer, Senior Planner
CITY OF TEMECULA - Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
RE: Winchester IT_~ls Property - Zoning
Dear JoM:
Thank you for the time you and Debbie Ubnoske spent with Tom MacMurray and myself,
updating us on the City ofTemecula's ongoing General Plan rexdew and zoning conformity
process. I also appreciate the time you spent with me on the telephone this morning.
Since your answer, no, to our request for Community Commercial CCC") zoning was not
the one I was hoping for, I have an alternative suggestion.
Prexdously Kernper, the prior owner, had submitted a request to have Lot ~:4 of the
Rancho California Corporate Park deleted from the Winchester Hills Specific Plan since it
is already pan of an existing plan, and to change its zoning from "BP" to "LI". We wish
to participate in your review but with slightly different goals than Kernper suggested.
You and I both agreed on leaxdng, for the time being, the property east of vacated Jackson
Avenue (approximately 427 acres) with its current General Plan designations of: mixed
residential uses, neighborhood commercial, school, and open space. The zoning for this
area will be Specific Plan.
I would like to reiterate our desire to have the property currently designated Business
Park - "EP" (approximately 134 acrca) bet-,veen the fleeway and vacated Jackson Avenue
not included in the area zoned Specific Plan. We would like the General Plan designation
for this area to be "SC" (Service Commercial) with the zoning to also be "SC".
The biggest concern you raised was traffic and its impacts. The "SC" land use generates
at 120 ADT/Acre. The "BP" land generates at 180 ADT/Acre. If we leave the higher
generation rate on the land, we will have more than enough trips to cover the change in
land use.
Since our property has 3,600 lineal feet of frontage along Interstate 15 between
Winchester Road and the city. boundary, it is oniy logical we should have a retail type land
use designation for this part of our property. This modification will also create the
possibility_ of greatly increased sales tax revenues for the City of Temecula.
q17 East Carrnel Street - Suite 200 / San Marcos, California
Office (619) ~71-0500 / Fax (619) ~71-q882
92069-q368
Mr. John R. Meyer - Winchester Hills Zoning
August 8, 1995
Page 2
In summary, we wish to leave the residential component unchanged and keep it subject to
a specific plan. We wish to change all of the land currently designated 'BP" within the
Winchester Hills project to "SC" and eliminate the need for a specific plan on this land.
Lastly, we wish to change the land use designation and zoning on the adjoining Lot ~4 in
the Rancho California Corporate Park from "BP" to "SC".
Again, thank you very much for your time and consideration. We truly appreciate you
efforts. Hopefully you will be able to make a positive recommendation regarding our
request.
Sincerely,
A. Bieri
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
REVISIONS ADDENDUM
REVISIONS ADDENDUM
August 21, 1995
The following Revisions Addendum consists of changes requested by the Commission during
its review of the Draft Development Code dated March 9, 1995. The additions/revisions to
the section are shown in ~ and the deletions are shown with a stril~c, c, ut.
R:\DEVCODE\REVADDI 8/17s'95
Chapter 9.03 Administration of Zoning
9. 03.040 Public Headng and Nott~caaon (see page 5)
(c) Posting of Property
See graphic at end of addendum
Chapter 9.04 Permits
9. 04. 030 Home Occupation Permits (starts on page
(d)
(1)
Requirements for Approval, Conditional Approval, or Denial of a Home
Occupation Permit
The home occupation shall be conducted entirely within in a dwelling or
attached enclosed building and must be clearly subordinate to the use of the
dwelling for residential purposes. Further, not more than twenty (20) percent
of the gross floor area not to exceed 300 square feet, shall be used exclusively
for a home occupation i~iUdi~i~,!~a;ii~;~!if~r~!::~ Horticultural activities
only may be conducted outdoors, but shall be within the rear one-half of the
parcel.
(3) There shall be no ~-g!i sales of goods or displays of goods on the premises.
(15) If the H6me Occupation is to be conducted on rental property, the pr~perty
owner's wrinen author~z.alion tbr the proposed use shall I~ obtained prior to
the submiaal for a Home Occupation Permit.
Chapter 9.05 Development Plans
9. 50. O10 Development Plans
Oo)
(2)
When Where Required (see page 1)
Development of an indi~idt.al residential project (ic: custom home or
speculative house) is exempt from the Development Plan Process. Residential
Development projects {merchant built subdwisio.'~s) on previously for which a
tentative tract or parcel map is or was required, are not exe!.-,_~.l from
submitting a Development Plan.
R:\DEVCODE\REVADDI 8/17195 Ires 2
An individual Single family home on a previously subdivided lot is exempt
from the Developmont Plan requirements. Residential Development projects,
for which a tentative or parcel map is or was required arc not exempt from
submitting a Development Plan.
(d)
(D
Hearing Procedures for Approval of a Development Plan (see page 2)
Approval by Director of Planning; When a proposed' project is less than
10,000 square feet of new building area ~i~e[:;~~;
~, and requires a negative declaration, EAR, or other action under
CEQA, the ~qrector of Planning shall have the authority to approve, approve
conditionally, or deny the project. The Director of Planning will
sc~cAulc a noticed public heating prior to making a determination.
9.05.020
Administrative Approval of Development Plan
When Required (see page 3)
Administrative review is permitted for applications for minor exceptions,
temporary uses, and substantial conformance to approved plans, and for
development pi~j~ ^'~-~ less than 10,000 sq. ft. that are exempt from the
CEQA process, ~d fo~ie:~iiti~i~i~i~!Vi~!~!!~ii~ii:0/il/eajii~!ii~/~VS&t~
by:theZ~p~Val~:i~y.
Chapter 9.06
9.060.020
(d)
Table
9.06(a)
Residential Districts
Description of Residential Districts
Low Medium Density Residential (LM) (see page 2)
The Low Medium Residential zoning district is intended to provide for the
development of single family homes on lots of 5~500 '~ .,,-,n to i0,000 sq. ft. of
net lot area. Typical density for the Low medium Density Residential
Development is from 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre,
4.5 dweltin~
Schedule of Permitted Uses (starts on page 3)
Permit Congregate Care Residential Facilities for the Elderly in the L-2 Zone
R:\DEVCODE\REVADDI 8/17/95 Ires 3
Conditionally Permit Bed and Breakfast Establishments in the all the
Residential Districts (subject to special rise standards and regulations as
discussed below).
Add foomote to Family Day Care Homes - Large (7-12 children) as follows:
A CUP processed for Large Family Day Care Homes is subject to Health and
Safety Code Section 1597.46 (a)(3). In accordance therewith, notice of the
application being filed shah be mailed to snrrounding property owners within
100 feet only and the notice shall indicate that unless a request for a hearing is
made by such surrounding property owner or other 'affected person' the CUP
will issue within twenty (20) days of the notice. If a heating is requested, the
Planning Department shall schedule such hearing within thirty (30) days of the
request and the heating shall be held within thirty (30) days of being
scheduled.
9. 06. 050
(a)
(1)
Special Use Standards and Regulations
Residential Density Incentives (see page 6)
Increase in the Maximum Residential Density. This section is exclusive of
density bonu~s as established under the State Government Code Section
659;~!i As a part of the process...
Co)
(2)
Privacy Standards (see page 8)
Visual Screening. All windows of adjacent residential units shall be offset ~d
or shielded :by tan~api~g from windows of the adjacent units. Screening is
to be achieved by appropriate placement of windows in adjacent units and
through discretionary placement of landscaping. Windows shall be offset at
least three feet or angled to prevent direct view into an adjacent residential
unit.
(e)
Swimming Pools (see page 11)
Swimming Pools and Spa~ which are capable of holding water to a depth of 18
inches or deeper shall be located only in the side or rear yards or allowable
buildable area, with a setback of five feet from any property line. and ~
shall be enclosed by walls or fences no less than 5 6 feet in height on exterior
property lines. Pool ~;dJ~ equipment an~ :Fa: may be located in side and
rear yards with a setback of at least three feet from any property line ~.~
be screened~fro~!:th~E.frO~:;::ym'd~:area~:
R:\DEVCODE\REVADDI 8/17/95 Lms 4
Senior Citizen/Congregate Care Facilities/Affordable Housing (see page 12)
Senior citizen/congregate care facilities/affordable housing developments are
permitted in the 0-2, LM, M, and H) zoning districts subject to the approval
of a Development Plan by the Director of Planning
(i)
(1)
6)
(2)
Manufactured Housing (see page 14)
The exterior siding shall ~i:.~!~ consist of either wood or
stucco as determined by the Director of Planning. In determining the material
to be used, the Director shall consider the types of construction materials used
on existing houses in the immediate neighborhood.
Family Day Care Home Design Standards (see page 14)
!~:!;~.i~.~iii~ Large day care facilities (seven (7) or More children) shall
not be located within 300 feet of another large ~i~::~ facility.
(o) Property Maintenance (see page 21)
(2)(g) "Vehicles as used in this section shall include but not limited to, commercial
vehicles, automobiles, trucks, ~a~6~;:!~i~!~ trailers motor trucks, semi-trailers
motorcycles, mopeds, campers camper shells boats or other large portable recreational
and commercial equipment; and,
(3) N6h~0mnler~i~ Recreational Vehicle Storage Yard
Religious instittaions are conditionally permitted in all residential zoning
e. istricts. Religious institutions shall be developed in the following manner:
(t) The facility shall comply with all land use regulations and site development
stanclards of the/onin~ district in x~hich it is located.
(2) The faciliiy Shallbe'lOcated :on a ~neral:Pt~i:leVet~r0a~ay!i
(3) All buildings shall have a minimt:m 10 ft. setback from property lines
adjoining residential uses.
(4)~ Recreational facilities other than open fields shall have a minimum 25 ft.
setback from property lines adjoining residential uses.
R:\DEVCODE\REVADDI 8/17/95 has 5
(5) The buildings and parking shall be located to minimize impact on adjacent
residential uses.
Bexl and Breakfast EstablishmenU (B&B's) are conditionally permitted in all
residential zoning districts. B&B's shall be developed in the following
(1)
The facility shall comply w-ith all land use regulations and site development
standards of the zoning district in which it is located.
The use shall be incidental to the primary use of the residential structure to
ensure compatibility with adjacent residential uses.
cJlanicter.
(7) The
(9)
In addi:ion to the residential parking requirements. I off-strut parking space
.,,ha;! be provided for each guest return. 'Fande. m parking shall be permitted.
(;uest parking shall not be permitted in required .setback areas.
(i0) All B&BsShall :b :Subj f toth cCity' ;:h6tei/tiiOMZm9 :]i
(11) B&Bs shall meet all of the requireme~ts;:Ofi:h~Ci{~Fge~pegf~Cg~a
{:ot, nty Health De.r.Ab'-tment.
(13) ::::::No Receptions, private parties or similar activities, for which a fee is paid
shall be pertained
R:\DEVCODE\REVADDI 8117195 Ims 6
9.06.060 Landscape Standards
Co)
(3)
Plant Material (see page
Street trees shall be planted at a minimum of one tree per 45 linear feet of
street frontage. Interior trees shall be a minimum 14 gallon size at time of
(d)
(1)
Landscape Design Standards (see page 24~
F6i~i!!~ii!~f~i~i~ii~j~ all setback areas shall be landscaped, ...
Chapter 9.08 Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts
9.08. 030 Use regulalions
Table 9.08(a) (Starts on page 4)
Alcohol and Drug Treatment (outpatient) - prohibit in NC
Alcohol Bex crage Sales and Service - no change
Adult businesses - Subject to C:hapter 5.08 of ~e Temecula Municipal Code
Cutlery - Permitted in CC, HTC and SC
Delicatessen - Conditionally Permit in NC
General Merchandise/Retail Store < 10k sq. ft. - Conditionally Permit in NC
Guns and Firearm Sale~Pe~i~:'ii~i:!~CC:indi:SC
Massage
Restaurants and Other Eating Establishments - conditionally permit in NC
Restaurants with lounge and or iiVe enteminment;:::cond~::~i~!~i~!::~Ci!
Chapter 9.16 Specific Plan Overlay District
9.16. 020 Procedures
(e) Findings (see page 2)
(1) The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the Generaj Plan
Developmea~t iCode
R:\DEVCODE\REVADDI 8/17/95 Ires 7
9.16.060 Amendments to Approved Plans rsee page 4)
Amendments to approved Specific Plans shall be made ~ the same procedure as ~
followed when the plan was adopted. Any adopted Specific Plan may also be repealed by the
same procedure as ~:i:~!.i:.~iiii~ the plan was originally adopted. Prior to the adoption
of an ordinance to repeal and discontinue a Specific Plan, the City Council, with a
recommendation from the Planning Commission, shall find that the plan is no longer
necessary for the orderly and systematic implementation of the General Plan. The repealing
ordinance shall include provisions for the immediate application of appropriate Zoning to the
area covered by the repealed plan.
Chapter 9.18 Village Center Overlay District
9.18.020Procedures ~ee page 1)
(a)
Pre-submittal and Preparation of Village Center Plans
A preliminary application and fee are required prior to filing a formal Village
Center Plan application. A pre-application conference with the Planning
Department representatives is required prior to filing of the formal specific
plan application. This is intended to provide direction to the applicant and to
provide information prior to preparation of detailed plans.
(2)
Prior to the preparation of a Specific Plan the applicant sitall hold a public
seeping w. ecting to identify lx, tential conmtunity coneerrs about the project.
Public notice of the scoping meeting is required. Noticing procedures shall be
del2ned b~. the l'lant~ing Department at the pre-application conference.
(e)
(1)
Findings (see page 2)
The proposed Village Center Plan is consistent with the General Plan
Development Code
9.18. 060 Amendments to Approved Plan (see page 4)
Amendments to approved Village Center Plans shall be made ~!ng the same procedure as
was followed when the plan was adopted. Any adopted Village Center Plan may also be
repealed by the same procedure as Was!:applied:~ the plan was originally adopted. Prior
to the adoption of an ordinance to repeal and discontinue a Village Center Plan, the City
Council, with a recommendation from the Planning Commission, shall fred that the plan is
R:\DEVCODE\REVADDI 8/17/95 hns 8
no longer necessary for the orde~y and systematic implementation of the General Plan. The
repealing ordinance shall include provisions for the immediate application of appropriate
zoning to the area covered by the repealed plan.
Chapter 9.24 Off-street Parking and Loading
9.24.020 General Provisions
(d)
(3)
Location of Parking and Loading Facilities (see page 4)
Vehicles and Equipment Repair Storage
The following provisions shall apply to any vehicle, motor vehicles,
motorhome, camper, camper trailer, trailers, unmounted camper, trailer coach,
motorcycle, boat or similar conveyance in all residential district, and to all
sites in any other district used for residential occupancy:
Table 9.24 (a)
Parking Spaces Required (see page 8)
Furniture Stores, Bulk Goods
R:\DEVCODE\REVADD18/17/95 INns
, NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING
Planning Application No. PA95-0123
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF 123
SINGLE FA~MII ,Y HObDiS
APPLICA~NT:
Acme Inc.
PUBLIC HEARING:
June 1, 1995
For Information Contact:
City of Temecula PLANNING DEPARTMENT
43174 Business Park Dnv~ (909) 694-6400
:
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENT LETTER
AUG-N-95 ~ON
B~S ~3STAISA
F~ NO. 7147555648
Law Offices
B~REE, WILLIAI[e & SORENSEN
3200 PARK CENTER DRIVE
SUITE 750
COSTAMESA, CALIFORNIA 92626
(714} 545-5559
P. 01
7108 North Preeno Street
Suite 401
Fresno, California 93720-2938
2310 Ponderosa Drive
Suite 1
Camarlllo# Callfornia 93010
611 West Sixth Street
Suite 2500
Los Angeles, California 90017
Lighton Plaza
7300 College Boulevard
Suite 220
Overland Park, Kansas 66210
TELECOPT MESSACE
TO:
John Meyer
cc: Gary Thornhill
DATE= 08/14/95
FROM: Greg DiaZ
ACCOUNT #: 02351-006
SUBJECT:
Development code
FAX #: (909) 694-6477
f0TAL NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING THIS PAGE):
FOR ASSISTANCE PLEASE CAT~.: (714) 545--5559
OUR TRT.RCOpIERNUMBER IS: (714) 755-5648
The information contained in this facsimile message is intended only for the
CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information
transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents
confidential attorney work product. If YOU are not the designated addressee
named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the
designated addressee you received this document through inadvertent error and
any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communica-
tion by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. I~ YOU RECEIVED TEIB
COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER
NAMED ABOVE AT (714) 545-S~59 AND RETURN T~B ORIGIN/%L OF ~=IS C0MM~NICATION TO
US BY MAiL RT TH~ ~BOVE-RDDaESS. Thank you.
lESSAGE:
Enclosed is my letter dated August 14, 1995 regarding the
remaining Development Code issues.
LAW OFFICES
BUItlCR~ WILLIAM~ & SORENSk;N
August 14, 1995
John Meyer
Senior Platmet
City of Tcmecuh
43174 Business Park Drive
Tcmecula, California 92590
Remaining 12L-vdopment Code Issues
Dear lohn:
As requested, the following reflects my research into the outstanding Development
Code issues. The information you or the Planning Commission requested will be provided in
a qu~fion and answer format to assist you in working through each of them.
Q-1. Is the CRy preempted by Federal or State law from regulating in which
zones firearms dealers and gun sales may occur?
Pursuant to the Fateral Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. 927, there is no expressed
Confessional intent to occupy the field of firearms licensing. Any smto or local regmlation
would be permissible unless it eonllicted with Federal law. Further evidence of this Iack of
Federal preemption can be found in the requirements of the 1994 Federal Violent Crime Bill
which contains a provision that requires to be eligible for a Federal Firearms License, the
applicant must first certify that his or her business complies with local and state licensing
regulations, (18 U.S.C. 923(d)(i)(F)). Consequently, if the local zoning prohibited the sale
of firearms in certain zones, such as a residential zone or a nelghborhood-commereial zone,
then the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, And FLmarms would deny the license if the
applicant indicated ~e ~me on the license certification.
A similar analysis of State law indicates that them is no express preemption of local
regulations providing where rireanns could be sold and where they are prob3bited to be sold
so long as the regulations pertain to the location of sales and not who is licensed.
John Meyer
Senior Planner
City of Temecula
August 14, 1995
3Page 2
Government Coclc See'don 53071 Fovides that:
'It is the intent of the Legislature to occupy the whole field of
regtaation of the regi~hation or licensing of commercially manufactured
frearrns as encompas.~l by the pwvisior5 of the Penal Code, and such
provisions shall be exclusive of all local regul~ons, relating to
registration or ilceasing of commerchliy manufactured firearms by any
political subdivision as defined ia Section 1721 of the Labor Code,'
Zoning regulations are neither a 'registration' or 'licensing* mechanism for firearms
or any other sales or services. Zoning regulations are regulation~ of the uges to which land
can be put, As such, ff a zoning ordinance does not allow far the sales of firearms in cermln
zones, such as a residential zone or a neighborhood-commercial zone, it will be permissible
under State law even in light of Government Code Section 53071.
Q.2.
Can the City require s notlc~d public hearing prior to the consideration by
the City Council of MEemoranda of Understavaln~_ which start the process
of development agreements between the City and !and developea~?
The Memorandum of Understanding process utilized by the City of Temecula in
which certain understandings are reach~ between the City and land developers prior to
engaging in the formal development agreement proce.~ under Government CocIe Section
65864 ct se~. is a local creation. It is not provided for under the Government Code.
Therefore, the City has the option to utilize whatever process ix chooses which comports with
due proeel. As a result, there is no legal reason why a noticed public hearing could not be
held prior to consideration of a Memorandum of Understanding at the City Council levd.
As noted a~ the Planning Commission session where this issue was raised, holding a
no6ced public hearing at the Memorandum of Understanding stage may, in many
ch:cumstaaces, be premature. With the MOU, developas axe merely asking the City Council
for an eaxly 'read' ff the City Council would entemin a projea of a specific si?~- and scope.
Many of the details which a~e most likely to be of interr. st to the public have not been
defined. When the particular project's entitlement or the actual development agreements are
submiRed, the public will be provided notice of the public hearings on these items at both the
PIning Commission and City Council levels. At that point, much more information will be
~UG-14-95 ~ON 15:23 B COSTA liESA FP.X NO. ~14~555~48 P. 04
lohn Me~er
Senior PlanneX
City o£ Temccula
August 14, 1995
Pa~c 3
availabl~ for public consideration.
Section 9.03.030(c), on the notice to property owners, what options does
the City Council have to be able to obtain an upchted surrounding
property owners list when a project h.~ been in the phnning process for a
considerable length of time and a substanthl change in surrounding
property owners may have
The City of Temecula currently provides double the mount of public notice required
for !and use public hearings than is required by ,~ta~ law. State law only requires notice to a
300 foot radius, while the City has opted for a 600 foot radius and a minimum number of
pwperties to be noticed. In addition, the City Council has expanded the 'posting' of public
hearing notices required under State hw for "big' or 'significant' projects by requiring a
large sign to indicate that a project is propose~ for a specific property. State hw compliance
would be achieved by merely posting on the subject propertics thc same lettcr-size public
hearing notice generally mailed to ~y owners.
With the above as a background, providing updated property owner lists at some
subsequent date raises some legal and practical difficulties, The legal difficulties are that on
a certain date, generally thirty days fwm application submittal, the City is required to
determine if the filing is complete~ The 'complete' determination is based on having the
surrounding property owner list included. Furthermore, with certain limited exceptions, once
the 'complete' determination is made, the City is prohibited from requiring additional
information, submittals. or processing fees to be paid.
As a practical matter, the City would have to determine at the outset what the
threshold for requiting a new surrounding property owner list submittal would be. Are the
threshold projects that have been in processing for one year, two years, or those that have
had significant development occur on previously undeveloped surrounding property? Perhaps
the easiest way to both legally and practically implement such an additional notice
requirement would be to incre~,e the deposit required when applicants file to cover the
preparation of the surrounding property ownen after that of initial submittal. A refund of
this additional deposit could then be made if the supplemental surrounding property owner
list was not required.
AUG-14-95 NON ~5:24 B~S COSTA liF_,SA FAX NO. 7147555648 P. 06
John Meyer
Senior Planner
City of Tcmeaila
August 14, 1995
Page 5
family strucumes. Consequently, the City is required to Ik~,,,{t manufactured homes on
single-family residential lots.
Very s~mil~r requirements to those noted above are imposed on the City for mobile
homes and mobilehome parks. The City may not prohibit mobile homes on lot zoned for
traditional single-farm'ly residential structures. The only exception to this requirement is that
the City does have the option to determine if the lot for the proposed installation of the
mobile home is compatible for mobile home use. In addition, the City can apply all of the
same standards to the installation of the mobile home on the traditional single-family
residential lots that it would apply to such traditional single-family stracture. The only
limitation here would be certain aspects of architectural review under Government Code
Section 65852.3. Furthermore, the establishment of a mobile home park is deemed a
permitted land use among all lands zoned or planned for residential land use as set forth on
the adopted General Plan. The City may w. quirea Conditional Use Permit to permit such a
use under Government Code Section 65852.7. Consequently, with limited exceptions, the
City must permit the installation of a mobile home on a traditional single-faraily residential
lot.
Q.5. Section 9.06.030, May the City require a Conditional Use Permit for large
family day care homes and under what limltations/ch. cnmslances?
The City may require Conditional Use Permits for large family day care homes in
accordance with the California Child Day Care Facilities Act, Health and Safety Code
Section 1596.70 eJ se~. The City may also establish them a a permitted use or may
establish certain performance standards as authorized by statute such as traffic, parking,
spacing and concentration, and noise and allow all those who meet those standards to
operate. State law allows family day care homes of six or less to operate in a residential
zone as a matter of fight. Only when a home would have between seven and twelve children
would it he classified as 'large' and allow the City to regulate the use as a non-residential
use.
If the City selects the Conditional Use Permit option, please be advised that Health
and Safety Code Section 1597.46(a)(3) modifies the CUP process as we have become
accustomed to it. To begin with, public notice is only provided 'to property owners withill
190 feet of the proposed use and a public hearing is held only if a surrounding property
John Meyer
Senior Planner
City of Temecula
August 14, 1995
Page 6
owner or other *affects! person* specifically requests one. If no hearing is requested, the
Conditional Use Permit automatlcally issues. B~:ause of the fight language of flds statute, it
does not seem to nu~ that the City has the option to modify the standards such as increasing
the notice requirement as the City has done in other areas.
In terms of implementing the Conditional Use Permit requirement, I suggest that the
draft D~velopment Code be modified to reflect a footnot~ for Table 9.0 6(a)'s refer~nc~ for
"Family Day Care - Large" to indicate the special procedural requixemeats of Health and
Safety Code Section 1597.46(a)(3). This footnote could mad as follows:
'A CYu'P pzocessed for Large Family Day Care Homes is subject
to Health and Safety Code Section 1597,46(a)0). In accordance
therewith, notice of the application being filed shall be mailed to
surrounding property owners within 100 feet only and the notice
shall indicat~ that unless a request for a heating is made by such
surrounding property owner or other 'affected person' the CUP
will issue within twenty (20) days of the notice. If a heating is
requested, the Planning Department shall schedule such heating
within thirty (30) days of the request and the hearing shall be
held witbin thirty (30) daya of being scheduled.'
I have attached a more cOmprehensive ordinance addressing I.a~e Family Day C, arc Homes
adopted by the City of Los Alamitos for your reference in the event the City decides a more
comprehensive approach is desired.
Q.6. Section 9.06,050(m), Second Units, Can the City mandate a minimum size
for the second units?
Yes, ~e City is specifically authorized by Government Code Section 65852.2(d) to:
".. . establish minimum and maximum unit size requirements for both attached and detached
second units. No minimum size for a second unit, or size based upon a percentage of the
existing dwelling, shall be established by ordinance for either attached or detached dwellings
which does not permit at-least an el~eiency unit to be constructed in cOmpliance with local
development standards ...' As a result of the above, the City may establish minimum and
maximum unit size for second units, but must permit them to be at least as large as an
,.o,-~.y 6 B~S COSTA I'E. SA FAX NO. 7147555648 P. 09
lohn Meyer
Senior Planner
City of Temccula
Aught 14, 1995
Page 8
The dechion be based on written
findings.
A denial of an application for a
CUP be subject to appeal to the
City Council in accordance with
Section 9.03.100 of this Code.
The same proc__~_ure for noticing,
and conducting the CLIP hearing
that is utilized by the City for all
other CUP's be used and provide
for all paxlies to be present and to
present evidence.
The decision and findings be based
on substantial evidence in view of
the whole record to justify the
ultimate decision.
(3)
The above businesses shall not be located withkt
five hundred feet (500') of any religious
institution, school, or public park. The License
application shall be reviewed by the City's Police
Services prior to City's approval.'
Q&8~m
Section 9.06.050(j), Does the State regulate outdoor play areas for family
day care centers or does the City have the option of imposing a specific
standard?
In accordance with the California Child Day Care Facilities Act, Health and Safety
Code Section 1596.70 et -~a., the City may establish certain performance standards such as
tragic, parldng, spacing and concentration, and noise. As outdoor play areas do not appear
on this list, the City's authority in this regard is limited. Some jurisdictions have required
that the outdoor play areas be securely located and appropriately landscaped. This appears to
Jolm Me~:r
g~nior Planner
City of T~-mecula
August 14, 1995
Page 9
bc the ~xtcnt to which the City can x~gulat~ the outdoor play areas.
Q.9. Section 9.06.050(o)(2)(d), Does the Uniform F~re Code regulate parking in
sideyard setbacks, Le., 3' from a structure:
The Uniform Fire Code adopts the Uniform Building Code's, (*UBC*), requirements
for separation or dear areas around 'escape or rescue windows,* IZBC Section 1204
provides in relevant part that:
'...[~All escape or rescue windows shall have a minimum net
clear openable area of 5.7 square feel The minimum net clear
openable height dimension shall be 24 inches, The minimum
net clear openable width dimension shall be 20 inches ...'
As a result of the above, parking in the sldeyard setback is permissible if the clear operable
area is maintained. Cextain additional requirements may also apply such as fire walls,
building separation, or emergehey access.
Q.10. Table 9.08(a), On what bas~s can the City distinguish between outdoor
swap meets and outdoor farmer's raarkets?
There is no legal requirement for the City to allow or prohibit either outdoor swap
meets or outdoor farmer's markets. Consequently, a court reviewing the distinctions or
class~cations prepared by the City would look to the reasonableness of the clarifications
and the different treatment resulting therefrom. One basis for such a distinction could be
General Plan policies which seek to promote the rural lifes~le of which a farmer's market
could be a~ integral part. On the other hand, an outdoor swap meet would not fit those same
policies. Consequently, a reasonable and rational basis can be found for distinguishing
between the two uses.
Q.11. Section 9.08.050(g), Is the rcquirement in thig Section for a 500'
separation from churches and schools and alcohol uses valid?
Business and Professions Code Section 23789 generally regulates the location of bars
and liquor stores in relation to churches and schools. As to churches, Business and
74 9 B~ OOSTA ltESA FaX lqO. 7147555848 P. 11
~ohn Meyer
Senior Planner
City of Temecula
August 14, 1995
Page 10
:Professions Code Section 23789 permits the Depaxtment of Alcoholic Bever~e Control,
('ABC'), to refuse to issue a license 'within the immediate vicinity of churches and
hospitals, * As to schools, the ABC is author~_,",q to w, fuse to issue a licens~ within 600' of a
school. The City's zoning authority does allow the City some flexibility to set up addidonsl
criteria which do not conflict with State law. An the City's standard is more restrictive, it
would likely be valid.
Q.12. Section 9.24.020Cn), ls the reference to *specialized work-related vehicle*
specific enough to allow the City to differentiate between vehicle types for
on-street parking purposes and for purposes of prohibiting parking in the
driveway or front yards in residential zones?
As to parking on public sheets, it is lila~.ly that the City would only be able to
differentiate between vehicle types which are defined in the California Vehicl~ Code which
does not contain a listing for "spe~aliTed work-rchted vehicle.' Even ff the City can find a
classification which is defined in the Vehicle Code for on-street paxking, the City will need
to provide adequate no~ice of the local provision to avoid due process violations.
In 75 Ops,Cal. Atty. Gen. 239, the California Attorney General issued an opinion
which addressed the issue of whether a City could prohibit the parking of particular
categories of vehicles on private propen'y, such as driveways and private commercial paddng
lots. The Attorney General.concluded that because the California Vehicle Code does not
regulate such parking the authority to regulate such parking would stem from the city's
Constitutional police power. Thus a city can regulate parking on private property to the
extent that it can regulate any other land use. The major issue therefore is whether or not
the ordinance provides sufSeient notice of what types of vehicles are prohibited and how this
information is transmitted to the public.
As drafted, Development Code Section 9.24.020(h) does not seem to provide enough
notice of exactly which vehicles axe encompassed within the term 'specialized work-related
vehicle.' Thus, enforcement of this Section would probably violate due process becaus~
people are not given enough notice of exactly which vehicles will violate the ordinance. ff
the City wishes to prohibit the pa~ldng of these types of vehicles on private property, the
City should either clarify the definition or list exactly which vehicles will violate the
ordinance. Simply offering one or two examples in lieu of a definition will likely not satisfy
AUG-14-95 I~ON 1~?:28 B~S OOb"l'A IIESA FAX NO. TI4?GSGB48 P. 12
John Meyer
Senior Planner
City of Temecula
August 14, 1995
Page 11
due process, thus rendering the ordinance unconstitutional.
Q.13. Section 9.24.040(d), Does the City have the authority to impose higher or
more strict requirements for the provision of handicapped parking -
especially wlth certain types of uses such as doctor's offices, medical
buildings,-physical therapy centers, etc.?
As a matter of development standards. the City could irapose additional or highex
standards in terms of the numb~ of handicapped parking stalls required as a condition of
development approval. Such standards, if used, should be establLshed as a paa of the
performance standards for any zone in which the City desires them to apply. The City could
rationally and legally distinguish between the types of uses to which the higher number of
handicapped parIcing s~aH~ apply by focusing the City's efforts on doctor's offices, medical
buildings, and physical therapy centen. Such additional standards, ff used, should be
enumerated as additional pe~ormance slandards for the spedfled uses. The City does not
have the option to lower the standards for disabled parking or access provided for in Federal
or Stale law or regulation.
Q.14. Section 9.24.{M0(e), what, if any, authority exists for the City to enforce
the *Compact Cars Only* designation on *compact car* parking spaces?
Labeling a parking space 'compact ear only' may not satisfy due process if the intent
is to enforce this restriction. Neither the phrase 'compact car' nor the phrase ,large car' or
'full-size car' axe defined in the California Vehicle Code. Thus someone cited for parking a
'la~e car' in a 'compact car' space would likely violate the notice requirements of due
proce~ because a driver cannot tell from reading the OrcllnnriCe or the marking on the
paxking space whether his or her car qtmli~ea as 'compact' or "large' ear.
If the City wishes to enforce this type of restriction, the City will likely have to
incorporate definitions, with dimensions of 'compact car' and 'large ear' into the City's
Codes. Additionally. the City may want to require the words 'compact cars ~nly' or
possibly some t3,pe of signage be used in private parking lots to further ensure that the notice
requirements of due process are met.
lohn Meyer
Senior Planner
City of Te, mecola
August 14, 1995
Page 12
Q.15. Section 9.2A.040(e), Is then any requirement that the City keep compact
parking stalls as an option for devdopers to assist in meeting off~stree~
parking requirements? Are there any legal problems associated with
~llminating compact parking stabs as applied to future development?
I was taxable to locate any general legal requirement that the City continue to permit
the use of compact parking stalls. To the extent Itmt some ands of the City m'e covered by
Development Agreements or VeSliXlg tract maps, these, vested entitlements may allow
developers covered by those specific enfiflements to continue to use existing parking
standards which may include the use of compact parking mils, A brief contact with the
Southern CaLifornia Air Quality Management District indicates that they have no mandate for
citiea to allow compact ear parking stalls and there is no incentive for cities to maintain them
from the SCAQMD,
Q.16. Section 9.26.025, Covenant of Easement, Does the City have the authority
to ninerid or rele3se the Covenant if the land use entitlement by which it
was imposed expires or terminates?
Covenants of Easements were createel by Government Code Section 65870 et .~. to
allow cities to ensure access, parking, or similar issues could be addressed when one
property o'~.mer holds two adjoining properties and traditional real property law would
provide that any easement in that situation (from the owner to the same owner) would merge
into the underlying fee ownership and thus dissolve. The practical impact of this traditional
real property rule was to prevent the City from ensuring aexess, parking, etc. in this simatlon
which it could ensure by others not under common ownership.
The City does not have the option to amend the covenant or to provide for the
automatic release of the covenant of easement when the underlying entitlement expires or
terminates. However, Government Code Section 65874 does specifically require the City to
establish a release procedure for the covenant of easement which requires a public heating.
Such a procedure could also be used to amend the coven~t if an amendment ~s nece_~ra ry.
The City Council may in the enabling ordinance designam itself or some other body of the
City, such as the Planning Commission, as the hearing body. As a result, the covenant of
easement can be released, but a public hearing will be required.
i.o,~.v 29 BUS OOSTR I'~_S~ FRX HO. 7147555648 P. 14
John Meyer
Senior Planner
City of Temecula
August 14, 1995
I hope the foregoing information is helphi to you. If you have any questions
regarding this matter, please feel free contact me.
Eliclosure,
Sincerely,
mey
CITY OF TEX!T~ULA
Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director
Peter M. Thorson, Esq., City Attorney
ORANOg:4549.1
9 0 B~S COSTR iIESR F~X NO. 7~47555648 P, 15
ORDINANCE NO. 589
AN ORDINANCE OF TIE t;ll~ COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALAMITOS,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMF. NT 107-95 AMENDING
SECTION 22-57.U. OF THE ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES IN THE CITY.
The City Cormell oftl~ City2fLos Alumires does find and delereaine as follows:
SECI'iON ONE.
WHEREAS, a verified application ha~ been filed for a certain property,, to wit: all properties within tl~
corporate botmdarics of tl~ City of Los Alamitos;, and,
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Section 22-71 of th~ Zoning
Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Planrang Commission did on the 6th day of Februa~., t995, hold a duly noticed public
heanng as prescribed by law to c~nsid~r said re'quest: and_
WHIcKEAS, th~ City Council did on ttz 271h day of. Februazy, 1995, hold duly notic. x.d public hearings as
prnscribed by law to consider said request;
WI-UcKEAS, al. said public hearings, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of
all persons de.siring to be heard, said Council considered all factors relating to Zoning Ordina~
Amendment (ZOA} 107 -95.
WHEREAS, pursuant to tlz provisions of tl~ California Environmenhl Quality Act (CEQA), an
environmeni2l checklist and Negnuve Declaration were prepared for tlz project a.s documented in City
Council R~solufion 1565, and available for public re. view beginning lanual~ 13, 1995;
WE. REAS, Zoning' Ordinance Amendment 107-95 is consistent with and implements the goals and
objectives of the City's General Plan; anck
WH2EREAS, Zoning Ordinance A.mcndmmt 107-95 is in the best long ratig~ interests of tl~ cammtmity
m!nting to the need for the ~-mbEsbanent of regulations for uses such as large family day cam homes du~ to
the cffi:cts th~se uses c:m have oa surrounding residential I.~,,a ,,,~s_; and,
WHERE,, Zoning Ordinma~ Amendment 107-95 is consistent with th~ land use development goal~ and
objectives of the cammunky.
SEifl 1ON TWO;
he City Council of the City ef Los Alamitos does ordain as follows:
Section 22-37.U. of the Los Alamitos Zoning Code is hereby amended by repealing the words lined through
and adding the words undcrtincd:
AUG-14-95 1 BUS COSTa HE~R FAX NO. 7J47555648 P. 16
u
Day Care Centera nnd La~ge-Familey Da.v Cat~ finrues as deftned in this Chapter subject ro ~he
iacutmao of n oone~tional use permit and fie followtug proviaiora:
minimum of .~,,~nq/~vo (75) ~qua~ fec, t of outdoor play ~a ~d ~i~' fi~ (35)
~u~ f~ efhd~r pl~v ar~ =~t be provi~ ~r ¢Mld. ~c ou~r play ar~ sh~ be
l~&eap~ ~d ~xcI~ by a s~ (6) f~t ~gh ~' ~11 ~th a ~ clo~g ~d ~If
lSg ~te.
F'trc Department appro~,al and a lio~nc,~ from tho Orange County. g~cial Servlc~
Departmcnt sixall be obtained prior ~o occupancy of th~ Da.v Cam Center or Large Family
Day Caxo Horn.
3. Off ~rect pa&ing shall be pm,,idM in aceordanco with Soe. 22
Family Day Caro Homa~' ziull not be zubjoct to the provi~Aona of Section 1597. ,16_ (a) e'3 )
of the Health and gafcty Code_
Day Care Centers and Large Family Dav Care Homes as defined in this Charter. subject to the
following Dinvisions:
1. Day Care Centers.
Off-street parkin~ shall be provided in accordance ~,x4th Section
45,
The prorider shall secure the apl~ropri~tc ei'dld cam license, as re~luired by the
Orange CotroW Sodal Service~ DepartmentJati~r to a Certi6cate of Occupancy
bein~ issued to llxe day care center.
Larlze Family Day Care Homes shall be a permitted acCessOry uSe for dwellings located in
a residential zone. subiecx to first obtainin~ a modified conditional use ~ermit as described
below:
Avplicafions for modified conditional use permits Shall he ~Ubtrtit~ed to the
Cnrnmurdtv Devekmme~t Department
Followin~ ~e receipt of a comvl~ge ~,pplieatiork the Coro. munitv Develooment
Deoanment shall ~ive notice of the nrcmosed use by mail to all uro~rtV owners
show~ on the latest e~ualized assessment roll as ownm~ real properW within a
10Q-foot radius of the exterior boundaries of the provos~l Large Family Day Cgr~
l:lome's pronetry lines, Following the ten ( 10~ day noticin~ period. the Communi~
Ekvvetopment Director Shall make a decision on the apvlication within ten
cla~s~
A Dublie hearing shall not be held on the aovtication unless a public hearing is
requested, in wridne. by either the apotieant or other affected vetson. The public
hearin~ shall be held in a manner as prescribed in Sections 22-69 and 22-77 tithe
LOS Alarnilos Zonin~ Cc~de.
589 - 2
P, UG-14-95 liON ]5:32 t3~3 'eOS'~R ]IES~' FAX NO. 7N7555648 P. 17
The Plan~ing Commission, in the c~sc of a hublie he~rin~: O_r ~he Communit~
Development Director shall a~prgve the aptfiication uoon finding that the prol~osed
use complies with all the followvinE
The Lance Family Day Care Home n the provider's own residence, the use
is cl~rlv incidental and secondary Io the use of the DroOcrtv for
rcsideotial pumoses. and the fadlit-: may be Dermined liecased child
su~,.r,.,isor assistants only as rcxluircd by the State.
The o~eration of the facility shall comply with noise standards contained
in Article XI of the Los Alamitos Zomn~ Code and the Noise Element of
the Los Alamitos General Plan.
Off-st, ~et l~arking shall be provided in accordance with Section 22-45.
The ~roposed use must comply with all State Fire Marshad. requirements
for buildine and safety ~ieh aD01v tO Lar~ Family Day Cam Homes.
and with all I0eal buildin~z and fin: cod~ which aoplv to ,tingle-family
residences.
(5)
The prorider mpst Secure a Lanze Family Day Car~ Home license from
the Orange County Social Services Dc~rtrnent ~rior to issuance of a
Certificate of Use and Occupancy forthe Large Family Day Care Home,
Play eguipment shall be located in a secured area and all outdoor olay
areas shah be landscaped.
The Lame FamiIv Day Care Home shah not be located within a radius of
300 feel measured from the property lines of the subject ~rouertv. of an
existing Large Family Da~' Caze Home.
The f~cilitv shall be operated in a manner so as not to appear as
commen:ial ooeration, and the OroDtrty shall be maintained to
the general appearrm~ and charaCter of the residential neighborhood.
If the applicant is dissatisfied ~vien the decision of the Commurtirv Development
Director. the apolk:ant may appeal in w~tin~: to the Planning Co.u,issic~n wi'ffin
te~ (10) da,qs of the Direetor's decision.
The Community Development Deuar~ment shall be authorized to collec~ a
necessary to process the Modified Conditional Use Permit for a Larue Eamilv Day
Care Home.
The City Council shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance by the City. Council and within
f:/u~n days shall cause th~ same to be publkshcd in the manner prowdeal by law. Said Ordinance shall take
effe~ ~rty days attcr its passage.
589 - 3
~UG-14-95 liON 15:32 BI,iS ~T~ ~ F~ NU.. i4K;s5648 k. 1o
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a t'cgular rant:nag of the City Council of the Ci~ of Los
Alamitos, California held on this 13th day of March. 1995.
Mayor, City of Laas Alarmtos
Ai tl:ST:
City Clerk oftht City. of Los Alsmitos
STATE OF CALIFOKNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF LOS alTOS )
SS
L Donna S. Velia, City. Clerk of the City of Los AJamitos. do hereby certify.- that the foregoing Ordinance
wa~ introduced on the 27th day of February., 1995, and xx;Ls adopted on the 13d~ day of March. 1995, by
the following roll call vote:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBEKS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
AI f,~,ST:
City Clerk of the Ci~' of Los Alamitos
en, ord589
589 - 4